Congress Passes SWSA 183
signer writes "Congress has passed the Small Webcaster Settlement Act (House of Representatives link). Webcasters have until December 15th to negotiate Percentage-of-Revenue royalty payments, and they have the option of changing their status to non-profit and gaining a delay until June 30, 2003 to pay owed royalties from previous years. RAIN (www.kurthanson.com) has details."
The Real Question is? (Score:5, Insightful)
Annual minimum royalty (Score:2, Interesting)
IS this settlement good or bad for the webcasters?
There is an annual minimum royalty of $500, which means that the smallest of small webcasters may not be able to afford it.
Re:Annual minimum royalty (Score:1)
Re:Annual minimum royalty (Score:5, Informative)
I'm no expert at translating from legalese, but it sure seems that $500 is for past revenues, in 1998 - and there's a $2000 per year minimum after that, i.e. $6K for 1999, 2000, and 2001, and then another $2K minimum for 2002. And that's just to settle PAST broadcasts. So there's a minimum outlay of about $8500 for ANY webcaster that's been around for those years.
Even if a webcaster is non-profit, with no income, they want 5% of expenses - still subject to the minimums.
Oh, and you're a small webcaster until you make more than a $1.25 Million?
Re:Annual minimum royalty (Score:3, Insightful)
Put up paypal, 50 bux a month and your covered. Of course better switch to peercast so your bandwidth doesnt run up your expenses (which they can charge 7% if expenses are larger)
BTW, people over at Nectarine [scenemusic.net] have been able to get enough donations to pay for bandwidth. They are even testing OGG streaming (less bandwidth than mp3s)
Re:Annual minimum royalty (Score:2)
Re:The Real Question is? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:The Real Question is? (Score:5, Insightful)
For one thing, the RIAA's slice of the pie still comes from *gross* revenue, meaning that stations operating with only a tiny profit margin will get very very screwed.
Another poster already mentioned the $500 minimum, but that I see as less of a problem, only affecting the smallest of webcasters. The percentage of the gross take, on the other hand, doesn't go away regardless of scale.
I have to admit I don't quite get the part about non-profit webcasting (the text of the bill HEAVILY references its predecessor, making it read almost exactly like a diff file). It sounds like they just have more time to decide to fold, but don't actually get significantly better terms. But don't quote me on that one.
Re:The Real Question is? (Score:2)
Re:The Real Question is? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's up for negotiations to decide, isn't it? One side POTENTIALLY benefits from "free promotion", the other from having some filler between advertisements (or some other benefit).
Making things interesting is that in the marketplace of music, webcasters can always go to alternative music sources if they can't come to what they think is an equitable agreement with their first choice rightsholders--be that agreement the rightsholders get paid, pay, or whatever.
in life, you get what you negotiate.
Re:The Real Question is? (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, that is the theory. But that assumes both sides come to the table more or less as equals.
In reality, the media cartels have a vertical monopoly on content from the artist's gitarre strings to the listener's earphone, whether that path passes through the radio or television spectrum as a traditional broadcast, or through the retail chain as a shiny 6" disc.
The relationship is more complex than this (the cartels are currently crying foul over radio payola
mp3.com represented a threat to this, before the cartels coopted them into the regime. Web broadcasters represent a threat to this, as do p2p filesharing networks. Their concern isn't that their content is being played (indeed, they pay for exactly that privelege on traditional radio), their concern is that their content isn't the only thing being played and, worse, they have no way to control that.
Except, of course, to tell a webcaster to "play our play list or pay (exhorbitant) retail to broadcast our music", using their current market dominance to relegate those who say no to a tertiary status, and likely costing them the early listenership they need to stay in business.
Its not that they don't want webcasting, or that they expect to make a lot of money licensing webcasters. Its that they only want THEIR webcasters online, and no one with such a cartel/monopoly mindset will ever negotiate with a party such as the webcasters in good faith.
So, until copyright is reformed to no longer grant government entitlement monopolies, there will be no free market in which such negotiations can take place, indeed, no free market whatsoever, so one cannot reasonably expect acceptable results to arise from applying free market assumptions to what is essentially a planned and very precissely regulated market.
Re:The Real Question is? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:The Real Question is? (Score:2)
I feel for you.
Maybe there should be a support group?
-b
Re:The Real Question is? (Score:2)
Re:The Real Question is? (Score:1)
Re:The Real Question is? (Score:2)
That's a great idea! I'm going to take one of the new BMW 7-series cars without the dealers permission, drive it around town everyday promoting it and then send BMW a bill for the favor I'm doing them by promoting their cars.
Re:The Real Question is? (Score:3, Insightful)
>That's a great idea! I'm going to take one of the new BMW 7-series cars without the dealers permission, drive it around town everyday promoting it and then send BMW a bill for the favor I'm doing them by promoting their cars.
Some unknown person driving one car around is completely different than broadcasting a song to hundreds, or thousands of people who likely have the means to buy the album. Also, you've taken and consumed physical capital (the wear and tear on the car) whereas the radio station do not expend any of the music company's physical capital.
Go ahead, try to make a convincing argument of a recent musician who was mainstream super-successful WITHOUT the help of radio or internet broadcasts (besides Phish or Grateful Dead, who aren't mainstream anyway). Music companies know the power of promoting songs on the radio, and would gladly pay off DJ's to give their songs more airtime, but it's illegal to do so in such a direct manner. [history-of-rock.com] Top level 'you-scratch-my-back-I'll-scratch-yours' deals drive radio play these days.
Finally! (Score:1)
after they pay these royalties... (Score:5, Funny)
Text (Score:3, Informative)
In a stunning victory for webcasting, both the Senate and the House of Representatives unanimously passed aImage: Bill text revised version of H.R. 5469 late last night that clears the way for copyright owners to offer webcasters a percentage-of-revenues royalty rate, essentially allowing the parties to mutually agree to override the CARP decision of last spring.
The Senate passed the bill at 10:32PM ET and the House passed it at 2:44AM. It now goes to President Bush for his signature.
The bill was actively supported by virtually all players on both sides of the debate this year, including the Photo: Sen. Jesse Helmsrecord industry, artist representatives, large webcasters, small webcasters, college radio representatives, and religious broadcasters.
In what was viewed as a surprise by some observers, the legislative staff in the office of retiring Sen. Jesse Helms (R-NC) (pictured) apparently played an active and valuable role in crafting what the parties concluded was a much better piece of legislation than the one Helms blocked at the last moment late last month (here).
Rates and terms removed from legislation
The key difference between the bill that the House passed in October and the revised bill, renamed the "Small Webcaster Settlement Act of 2002," is that Congress did not establish any definition of "small webcaster" or set any royalty rates in the final version of the legislation.
Rather, the bill grants both sides the right to enter into a voluntary agreement "without fear of liability for deviating from the fees andLink: SoundExchange terms of the July 8 order" (i.e., the Librarian of Congress's modified CARP decision).
Specifically, the bill does so by permitting the receiving agent of royalty payments (i.e., SoundExchange) to negotiate on behalf of all copyright owners, whether they are members of SoundExchange or not, for the period beginning October 28, 1998 (i.e., the passage of the DMCA) and ending December 31, 2004.
Under the new mechanism established by this act, the voluntary agreement envisioned would be submitted to the Copyright Office, published in the Federal Register, and subsequently made available to all qualifying webcasters.
However, the bill grants the receiving agent that authority to make a settlement with the small commercial webcasters only until December 15th -- so the clock is ticking for both sides to "paper the deal." (CONTINUED)
RAIN Vendor Guide Ver.3.0 Special issue coming soon: Most indicators seem to be pointing (finally!) toward a more-successful 2003 for both broadcasters and webcasters. To help you in your planning process for next year, RAIN's upcoming "Planning for 2003" issue will showcase products and services that will help you reduce your expenses and increase your revenues in 2003!
Link: ABC Radio Networks
Link to Backbone
Link to: Bean Bag Entertainment Link to BRS Media Inc. Link: Compuone.net Link: DiMA
Link to DotFM Link: Hiwire Link to IM Networks Link: Interep Link to Interep Interactive
Link: International Webcasting Association Link to Measurecast Link to The Media Audit Link to Radio Web Stuff Link to Sabo Media
Link: Stream Madness Link to Surfer Network
For YOUR firm to be included, call RAIN at 1-312-527-3869 or e-mail kurt@kurthanson.com
(CONTINUED FROM ABOVE)
Royalty payments from noncomms
suspended until next June
The version of the bill passed last night also suspends ALL royalty payments due from noncommercial webcasters until June 30, 2003, giving both sides time to work out a new voluntary royalty structure.
Furthermore, the bill adds a new definition of "noncommercial" that permits webcasters who are currently for-profit entities to file for nonprofit status and take advantage of this option as long as they have a "commercially reasonable expectation that such exemption shall be granted."
This provision seems to permit any "hobbyist" webcaster to make a choice of whether they would like to be a for-profit business or a nonprofit. The bill gives the parties involved until May 31, 2003 to negotiate their voluntary license.
Stronger non-precedential language added
The bill contains new and very strong language intended to prevent the deal negotiated in Sensenbrenner's office from being used as precedent in future CARPs.
One example: "It is the intent of Congress that any royalty rates, rate structure, definitions, terms, conditions, or notice and recordkeeping requirements, included in such agreements shall be considered as a compromise motivated by the unique business, economic and political circumstances of small Photo: Capitol buildingwebcasters, copyright owners, and performers rather than as matters that would have been negotiated in the marketplace between a willing buyer and a willing seller."
Another example: "Nothing in the Small Webcaster Settlement Act of 2002...shall be taken into account by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in its review of the determination by the Librarian of Congress of July 18, 2002, of rates and terms for the digital performance of sound recordings and ephemeral recordings."
Such language apparently satisfied the concerns of terrestrial broadcasters (e.g., the NAB and the National Religious Broadcasters) about the early version of the bill.
...
RAIN Analysis
...
Victory!
An amazing combination of influences has come together to craft a solution that should Photo: Kurt Hansonallow webcasting to move forward to a healthier 2003 and beyond, with benefits for copyright holders, webcasters, and consumers alike.
This is NOT a victory of webcasters over record labels (or, for that matter, vice versa). It is a victory for common sense, as all parties involved will benefit from a healthy webcasting space.
The record industry has apparently come to realize that webcasting should not be lumped in with CD burning and file sharing as one of their enemies, but rather that the new medium has the potential to offer real benefits for them if everyone quits acting as if they're adversaries.
And everyone else seemed to work together as well: Broadcasters did not flex their political might in Washington to try to quash this bill (and thus kill a potential new set of competitors), and Internet-only webcasters didn't use the negotiations to try to get themselves a leg up over broadcasters.
And record labels and recording artists -- the two factions that share in royalty payments -- used the bill to clarify the functioning of SoundExchange in a manner that had benefits for both sides.
Congress paid attention!
Finally, it's amazing to me that such a bill was able to get the attention of Congress -- and unanimous passage! -- during a lame duck session designed to focus on critical "homeland security" issues.
I'd like to think that last May's "Day of Silence" and the resulting press coverage (and support from listeners) played at least some small role in making this an issue that Senators and Congressmen were willing to pay attention to.
Now we can move forward
And now, let's see if copyright holders and webcasters can't execute those envisioned voluntary licenses and then start working together to, among other things, help break new artists, promote genres of music that have not gotten their fair share of terrestrial radio airplay in the past, and help sell records! - KH
...
Look for more details on this bill and industry reaction later today in RAIN.
Percentage-of-Revenue royalty payments? (Score:1, Funny)
Re:Percentage-of-Revenue royalty payments? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Percentage-of-Revenue royalty payments? (Score:2)
Where does personal use and promotional use differ, I mean, what if you really, really like "the Lemon Song" (god knows why, I like Led Zepplin, but....) so you have an endless tape of it playing at your lemonade stand for your own enjoyment...
Now, somebody who has the ability to cause you problems drives by and hears said song playing, this person decides that you ARE using this song for promotional purposes...
Who is right in a court of law? Unfortunately the person who is coming after you is going to have more money, and this would most likely result in you being found to be guilty.... In the words of Metallica, "Sad but true"... Uh, oh, was that "Fair use"???? Hope so...
Re:Percentage-of-Revenue royalty payments? (Score:2)
<SARCASM>
Because, after all, if you do play it without paying the RIAA, Elvis won't have any incentive to produce new works...
</SARCASM>
"Your rights online" indeed... (Score:1)
Re:"Your rights online" indeed... (Score:1)
Well, it goes a little further. So online radio stations must pay royalties, who next? What about hospital radio stations, should they have to pay too?
comments from somafm (Score:5, Informative)
There's nothing wrong with this bill (Score:4, Insightful)
Whether non-profit p2p and netradio is stealing or not can be debated -- but when someone takes an artist's hard work and plays it over the internet with the sole purpose of making money, it is blatant thievery of intellectual property and disrespect of copyright, which does have a right to exist to spur innovation in an economy that is, was, and shall be capitalist.
Re:There's nothing wrong with this bill (Score:2, Insightful)
Most of them, from what I've seen at least, are run by either (A) non-profit radio stations or (B) individual music lovers using Shoutcast or Ogg or what-eva.
And if the RIAA promotes their common "it promotes piracy" party line in this case-- oh, really? How many people are going to pirate a cruddy 56/96/128Kbps stream?
Re:There's nothing wrong with this bill (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:There's nothing wrong with this bill (Score:2)
Long live Menudo!
Re:There's nothing wrong with this bill (Score:2)
Granted, brittney spears spends 4 hours recording and then pays people to do the other 196 hours ... but what can ya do :)
Re:There's nothing wrong with this bill (Score:2, Interesting)
Most people playing this music aren't looking at profit but are playing music for the sake of music. Those that use "non-profit" status to try and slip by this are going to run head-long into the IRS rules on NPOs -- and they're NOT forgiving of organizations that try to use NPO status as a "cover."
Re:There's nothing wrong with this bill (Score:5, Informative)
They do *exactly* what you say seems so "wrong" for webcasters.
And, to add insult to injury, the RIAA actually *PAYS* "normal" radio stations to play that copyrighted music.
RIAA Sues Radio Stations For Giving Away FreeMusic (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:There's nothing wrong with this bill (Score:2)
This is simply how the world works. The RIAA makes more money when 90% of their sales is accounted for by like 30 albums a year. They maintain this by getting radio stations to play a list containing like 50 songs, and they pay for the privelege.
Webcasters, on the other hand, want freedom, and the RIAA is within their rights not to pay them for the privelege! If any webcaster shows an ability to shape the music scene in terms of what people buy, to a significant degree, then the RIAA will likely pay them (or co-opt them). Until then, don't expect it.
This is not to say I like the RIAA. I think they're a bunch of jackasses. But that's not relevant to the discussion at hand, which is to say they can certainly screw anyone who depends on their copyrights for a living, and are well within their rights to do so.
Re:There's nothing wrong with this bill (Score:2)
Re:There's nothing wrong with this bill (Score:1)
Re:There's nothing wrong with this bill (Score:2)
You just covered a *Madonna* song, for Pete's sake.
Re:There's nothing wrong with this bill (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:There's nothing wrong with this bill (Score:2)
Re:There's nothing wrong with this bill (Score:2)
I suppose all good slashdotters are currently exchanging jokes two stories before.
The pigs are flying. (Score:5, Funny)
Clearly, the apocalypse is coming. Someone tell the FBI...
Good news for the "true" non-profits (Score:2, Insightful)
like college radio and the NPR music stations (e.g. WXPN).
Problem, though, is that it could hurt the small, independent, for-profit stations. I can see Sh*tchannel using the royalty issue as a way to round up the last of the independents into their corporate droneness.
Guess this means I can start looking into streaming my music on the Web again. Now, if they could only relax the FCC rules on what you can play and when. (Not talking about obscenity but about the stifling rules on playing an artist more than once in a time period. I mean, if payola is legal now [with Sh*tchannel demanding $$$ from the record companies], then maybe we should toss out the rest of those 50s-era radio rules too.)Re:Good news for the "true" non-profits (Score:1)
Or maybe I read it wrong...
Non profit status = (Score:4, Insightful)
Just listen to webradio from other countries then (Score:5, Informative)
Well, I don't really care where the music comes from.
Even if you don't understand the foreign languages,
there are tons of webradios elsewhere
that will not suffer from these problems
(i.e. don't have to do massive advertisements to afford casting good music).
- Antenne Bayern (Bavaria, Germany) - click on "Live h\"oren" [antenne.de]
- FFH (germany) [www.ffh.de]
- HR XXL (Germany) [hr-xxl.de]
- BBC (UK) [bbc.co.uk]
Does anybody have some links to good webradios in Italy, spain, mexico etc.?? Please post!Re:Just listen to webradio from other countries th (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Just listen to webradio from other countries th (Score:2)
well? (Score:4, Funny)
Frankly, I can't tell by reading this summary. I'm forced to read the article and background information to form an opinion of my own, rather than sharing in the poster's rage (or satisfaction) at this travesty of justice (or victory for freedom)..whatever it is.
Please slashdot...let me know what I should think.. maybe an icon next to the story?
How does this effect College radio? (Score:3, Interesting)
A lot of alumni from my alma mater were upset when our radio station stopped webcasting. That was a MAJOR connection for us. Where will students/administration go to get answers? Will it be affordable (less than 4 digits)?
-Foo
Re:How does this effect College radio? (Score:1, Troll)
Re:How does this effect College radio? (Score:1)
So in a nut shell, if you are non-commerical/non-profit, you don't have to pay till June 30th, 2003. After that, my guess is there will be a very low yearly fee or royalty plan that you may or may not have to pay.
Again, don't quote me on this. But if it is what it sounds like, I am one very happy e-board member for my university's radio station!
The thing is.. Non-Profit means NO MONEY. (Score:2)
Re:How does this effect College radio? (Score:2)
Maybe artists could designate a song off their previously released album or something...
then all college radios could promote/play these songs with the hopes of getting the college populous to go out and buy the artists other CDs.
the other thing that should be tried - is that non profit radio stations should make compilation CDs of music that they play and sell them to their listeners - then take a percentage of those proceeds to support the station, while the rest goes to the artists or labels in leiu (sp) of royalties.
Re:How does this effect College radio? (Score:2)
- What is their GROSS REVENUE from the webcasts?
- What is their EXPENSE of the webcast, beyond their regular Internet connectivity?
- What is the size of their outfit? listners? employees?
For a college, they would probably have to work within the formula. That is, pay revenues of the larger of:- 0.08 * gross revenue from webcast
- 0.05 * (expenses of webcasts - certain exemptions, such as existing net connections)
So if the radio does no advertising, it makes no revenue from the webcast. It probably only has minimal webcast expenses, since it probably is already doing a radio broadcast. So the overall cost for a college to broadcast will be quite small.I've always wondered (Score:4, Interesting)
Thanks,
Re:I've always wondered (Score:2)
So, long story short... yes, you have to pay.
Re:I've always wondered (Score:2, Informative)
When artists sign an RIAA contract, their label owns every recording they make until X number of albums are released. Which means, if the label drags its feet and refuses to release the last album of the contract, that artist's career is over. They can't take their work elsewhere unless they're a multi-millionaire who can afford enough lawyers to find a way out.
Therefore, an artist under an RIAA contract cannot directly give you rights. They can't even record a handful of songs on their own and keep the rights for themselves, the RIAA owns everything.
It's time the music artists unionized...
Re:I've always wondered (Score:2)
hope that helps.
washingtonpost.com story has details (Score:5, Informative)
I tried reading the bill (Score:2, Insightful)
You'd thing after paying taxes to support a Congress to make 'laws' like this, they could spend a little to make it readable by the general public, which will have to hire laywers and subsequently be priced out of webcasting right there.
If this benefits the little guy, I'm all for it. Unfortunately, I can't tell. 'Course it's Friday and I haven't had my Dr. Pepper yet either.
Re:I tried reading the bill (Score:2)
If you are a programmer, imagine that you are in the 107'th development team of a two-century old legacy program. If you want keep side effects down, you have to be very precise, and your changes will be a little hard to read.
Re:I tried reading the bill (Score:2)
That's because the law is a public monopoly, and all the law is open source. They can't make money off the law, so they have to make money providing "service and support". So, they have a vested interest in writing laws that are hard to understand.
On the other hand, if we could choose from a multitude of proprietary legal vendors, the laws would almost certainly be simpler. Of course, you couldn't have a purely unregulated legal market because someone might go into "business", declare his home a sovereign state, and make wife beating legal. However, a regulated legal market with broad mandates such as upholding the Constitution and collecting revenue could be interesting. If people got disgusted with "pro-NRA flat tax 2.0", they could register their gun and switch to "progressive tax abortion rights unlimited 3.04".
The only trouble is, what happens when holders of "unlimited land use rights 4.5" move in next door to someone who just purchased "English common law 253.4 with rigid Home Owner Association bylaws service pack 2"?
I'm Done (Score:3, Interesting)
The sad thing for the RIAA is, that I really used to buy quite a lot of cds. By the time graduated high school I had nearly 100, and this mostly bought out of my own cash. Even as a poor colloege student I always buy my favorite bands cd's, but not anymore. Sad really, looks like I'll never own that new Pearl Jam. Oh well, I'll support the band by continuing to go see concerts and buying t-shirts and posters. The RIAA will never see another dime of my hard earned money.
Re:I'm Done (Score:2)
You could go give the band a fiver, they could probably hang on to that.
Re:I'm Done (Score:1)
Hmm, I guess maybe that's what I'll have to do.
Re:I'm Done (Score:1)
Sorry to break it to you, but if the bands you like are controlled by the one of the RIAA companies, RIAA makes money from concert tickets, t-shirts and posters too.
my cash to entertainers rules (Score:2)
Now this is just my formula, won't work for anyone else, but I just got tired of seeing the waste and greed when I worked live music and a little film/television industry work.
"Artists" and "executives" and etc. I saw where huge amounts of the money was going, screw them greedy people.
As to the broadcasting-the netcasting-simple solution, it's called stop supporting them, if it was me with a station, I wouldn't play any stuff that required royalty payments to them. It would have to be free for use by order of the creator/copyright holder, or a different contract that was much more reasonable, but none of the full price riaa stuff.
Re:my cash to entertainers rules (Score:2)
Just met too many folks who got extremely rich via "entertainment" or gambling in the stock market or taking advantage of manipulating laws and semi governmental monopolies and the bogus tax "codes". They change mostly, and I don't support giving them any more money as much as possible, I don't think they are worth it. This is now getting into a philsophical discussion of the concept of greed and the biblical injunctions of "just weights and measures" and all kinza stuff beyond a short post and reply exchange, but that's sorta it for me. Once I determine someone or some "entity" as represented by a corporation or "band" or "sports team", etc, has gotten to be mega greedy-purely personal and subjective on my part, granted- I try my best to not support them. It's vaguely undefinable except for anyone personally-I wasn't trying to make anyone agree with me, just show an example of where someone-me- a long time ago made a decision and stuck to it, I put my money-or in this case withheld it-where my mouth was. I looked, saw "greed", seemed bogus to me, so stopped supporting it. For that matter I don't thing gates or ballmer are worth a penny more either, so they don't get any more of my loot, I'll keep it in my pocket. To each their own, keep enriching those people at your expense and effort, I choose not to past a certain point, which is my opinion only and neither right nor wrong, just my "taste" in society and economics.
Now to me, just from my perpsective on societal "worth" and who should get paid what, I think engineers and and scientists and technicians and farmers and loggers and miners and factory production workers should make more than they do-very broadly speaking-whereas "sales people" and "managers" and "brokers"and "entertainers" and "politicians" and "agents" and whatnot like that should make less. And this isn't a commie versus capitalist argument, it's my version of capitalism, I'll support those whom I think are worth my support, those I feel are less valuable I'll do my best to restrict how much they receive , as I see it as "work" and "employment" and I'd rather support "workers" who are actual producers of wealth as oposed to those just engaged in the "business" of other's wealth re arrangement, and especially the "business" side of entertainment. I do it voluntarily with my wallet, as opposed to lobbying for some government to do it.
Great hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy episode, the thinkers, the doers and the middlemen, check it out if you can find it. It explains it a lot better than I just did.
Unexpected consequences (Score:2)
Re:I'm Done (Score:2, Informative)
However, for anyone experiencing such anti-RIAA sentiment, I would point out that some of the finest and most groundbreaking music today is released by labels who are not part of the RIAA. (99.9% of artists ARE involved with ASCAP and BMI, but as I understand it, these organizations are separate from and not quite as evil as the RIAA.)
For example, some of my favorite sources of music are Darla Records [darla.com], Drag City Records [dragcity.com], Teen Beat Records [teenbeatrecords.com], Matador Records [matadorrecs.com], Merge Records [mergerecords.com], Misra Records [misrarecords.com], etc., etc. Many of these record labels are actually NICE to their artists and fair to the consumer (the average cd price is maybe $11-14). Also, online stores like Other Music [othermusic.com] and Insound [insound.com] do a fairly good job of filtering new non-big-five-media-company music. This is, of course, a small slice of the available pie, focused around my particular listening habits. I know that it is daunting at first to try and find music outside the mainstream that suits you, but you really only need to find a few artists or labels to truly open the flood gates.
My point being, there IS music being made for you that does not diectly suport "the man." Find a record label you like and begin to branch out!
There seem to be TWO possible outcomes. (Score:4, Insightful)
2) Web radio stations start playing works by independent (non-RIAA-affiliated) artists en masse-- thereby avoiding having to pay the RIAA a red cent.
Actually, there's a third that is somewhere in between: 3) Web radio stations start playing only "mixed" versions of RIAA tunes, claiming that by producing a "modified, derivative work" it is legal. Then this gets hashed out in court, or worse in Congress...
As I see it, though, (1) is by far the most likely. Lots of the SlashDot types might be interested in indie music... but remember, lots of the listeners of these online stations are/were regular Joe-Blows. They want to hear Queen and Sting and Madonna and Eminem and Snoop Dawg, not (insert obscure indie band name here).
Le sigh... But if outcome #2 was the case... that would be very nice.. and might even spark a nationwide change in buying habits (i.e. people would start buying more indie music, leaving the RIAA bit by little bit... of course, this would only affect the mostly young and relatively Internet-literate (not necessarily computer-literate, but they're familiar with the Net and much of its underlying tech) folks who use Web streaming...)
Re:There seem to be TWO possible outcomes. (Score:2)
What about free streams? (Score:2, Interesting)
So what does this mean for me? If my revenues are zero, do I owe zero? A lot of the stuff I'd be playing would be from obscure artists who would likely not get a PENNY from RIAA extor^H^H^H^H^Hroyalties anyway.
Or is there a mandatory minimum, as I remember reading of in previous proposals?
Re:What about free streams? (Score:1)
But maybe there'll be something you can rig so as to register as non-profit, and then pay little or none...
But I don't think the RIAA will go for that. So shhhhhhh....
December 15th? (Score:2)
I read the article, but does this date only apply to the copyright holders of the content webcasters were streaming in the past? Ie, does the date only apply to negoating the roytalties with the copyright holders of content you streamed in the past, and does this prevent you from negoating custom roytalities with copyright holders in the future? (I can't imagine it would.)
What about classical stations? (Score:3, Interesting)
The music companies might put out an argument "Well, since we sell Beethoven and Bach CDs, you owe us", but realistically, what do you guys think will happen to those who only play music too old to be copyrighted (at least, until Congress ups the copyright time limits retroactively again
Re:What about classical stations? (Score:2)
-s
Re:What about classical stations? (Score:4, Informative)
The music itself is in the public domain.
The PERFORMANCES are owned by someone. If you have 1845 recording from the London Symphony Orchestra, that's in the public domain. If you have a 2001 perfomance of the same work by the same Orchestra, then you need to work out the rights.
frob.
Re:What about classical stations? (Score:2)
However, every *recording* made within the current timeframe of copyright today (death + 70 years) cannot be reused without consent of the holder of that work's copyright. You want an "unemcumbered" Beethoven's 9th Symphony that wasn't recorded in the '20s? Hire the conductor, orchestra, and choir, record it all, and its yours! Same goes for sheet music: if you can't find an old print copy, you can interpret the music yourself and write down every note on staff paper, and you won't owe anyone a thing.
Of course, that might be asking a bit much to avoid a few cents/dollars on licencing/royalty fees. But that's the deal, as it stands now.
Sade (Score:5, Insightful)
Exposure sells and it's the RIAA who are scared because maybe we don't want to buy the crap they are carpet bagging... maybe we will hold out for something better. They don't trust themselves.
One hit wonders shouldn't sell any records because the rest of their albums suck. While good musicians and artists who sweat blood to make amazing albums are still left behind. If the internet could do anything, I think it would even things out so real musicians would make the money they deserve and fluff bands get downloaded for the song that's good and passed over for concerts and cds.
Good music will always sell.
It's in their best interest to put out crap... (Score:2)
They don't really even want good music because the people that write it could increase their demands. There are more pretty faces than talented musicians...
Fortuantely there are enough people that aren't attracted to sex_idol-pop to allow other artists to flourish.
MTV has a lot of fault in this. No one can tell what you look like on the radio...
--Joey
Re:It's in their best interest to put out crap... (Score:2)
They can, though, if they see you on the cover of a magazine, or on the label of your CD, or on Jay Leno late at night, or in your new movie...
Much as we all love to hate MTV (and I do!), I think there's a larger culture-of-celebrity thing going on here. Being, as Zoolander would say, "unbelievably good looking," is just part of the celebrity package these days - playing a role in journalism [talksurgery.com], fiction [geocities.com] and nonfiction [nationalgeographic.com] writing, and politics [cnn.com].
And once you demand good looks, it's hard to get a really large helping of that "talent" thing in the same package... and so much easier to go to an external songwriting team. So that's what they do.
Not that I disagree with your point about the interchangeable sex-widgets. It's just that that's sort of an added benefit.
-renard
Re:Sade (Score:2)
You don't have to be in a record deal to become famous anymore.
Re:Sade (Score:3, Insightful)
It's a tough business, and an unethical one. I think anyone with an ounce of courage or a dash of gumption would avoid record contracts like they were the plague. Even after you tour your guts out and dance until you can't dance anymore, and sign autographs until you're blue: you give up your life, your privacy, your whole time and any possible control you could have over your destiny as a human being, let alone an artist. This process strips the artist of any soul they might have and leaves them breathless and broke, wondering what happened.
Congress Passes SWSA (Score:2, Insightful)
Allows for voluntary agreement... (Score:1)
Whatever happened to Payola! (Score:1, Funny)
their stuff, now they want to be paid.
Fickle bunch, eh?
-tongaloa
Re:Whatever happened to Payola! (Score:2)
I never understood why Payola was bad to begin with. It's just a different business model. There's plenty of room for Payola stations and ad-based stations and combinations thereof. I suppose misrepresenting the fact that you got Payola is immoral, but Payola in and of itself doesn't strike me as bad... unless it is accompanied by "take the money or take a bullet" which I understand it was in some cases.
What the hell? (Score:4, Interesting)
Read the law: GROSS REVENUE ONLY. (Score:3, Informative)
The law clearly states:
It says GROSS REVENUES, not anything about broadcasts or listeners.
This means that if you only have 20 listeners, you probably aren't making any revenue. If you are a small-time band broadcasting for yourself, you can make it so you make no revenue on the broadcasts. (make revenue on sales of the songs, not the broadcastings).
The second part says if you don't spend any money other than your regular web hookups (like your DSL, cable, T1, etc.) then you don't have to pay based on expenses.
The final part is just a protection that personal income isn't part of the broadcasting.
That's why (almost) everyone likes it. RIAA doesn't mind because they can get you for copyright if you broadcast their songs. Small webcasters don't mind IF they make no revenue. The only people who need to worry are:
Some people's children...
Re:What the hell? (Score:2)
They don't. They expect to put the non-profit webcasters off the air because they can't pay. Then, the only webcasts will be for-profit, run by people or companies that can afford the payments (which, most likely will result in a situation very similar to that of over-the-air radio, except instead of being paid, webcasters will be paying)
unhappy (Score:3, Insightful)
Clear-channel (Score:5, Informative)
I've got a friend coming into New York tonight, so I figured I'd check out a few local venues to see who's playing, what's going on and all that. One of my favorite music venues is Irving Plaza [irvingplaza.com]. (flash site) I like going to random shows, I like supporting local music and I like circumventing the RIAA as much as is possible.
Chck out the link above - see what's in the lower left-hand corner of the homepage under the Irving Plaza logo? "Clear Channel Entertainment [slashdot.org]."
Fuck.
I. Can't. Get. Away.
Triv
congress - bah! (Score:3, Interesting)
Take insurance for example - they can make it a law that you must actually carry insurance - but they cant make a law telling me how much i have to pay for it (although they should regulate the prices due to the fact that we are forced to carry a product sold by a private company)
Just because they *can* pass crap like this doesn *not* make it right.
This country is so ass-backwards these days I am amazed at the things that congress get away with without any repremands.
This is MUCH better! (Score:2)
The new legislation will charge them a percentage of the money they make! So if you're a small webcaster who is NOT profiting from the streams, you wouldn't have to pay.
Retroactive minimum fees are killer (Score:2)
However, the retroactive minimum fees are killer!
It will cost a minimum of $8,500.00 for a long-lived webcasting station to legally get back on the air. A fee of $2,000.00/year for years 1999-2002, plus a prorated fee of $500.00 for 1998 (the DMCA did not take effect until October 1998). Many small time radio stations and hobbyist stations cannot afford this!
I'm glad the law gives college radio stations and other nonprofits extra time to work this out.
If stations five years ago had known about the killer retroactive fees that would be coming due now, very few of them would have continued webcasting after that fateful day in October 1998!
To me, the solution is to forgive the retroactive fees, in exchange for agreeing to pay the new fees for years 2003 and beyond.
Re:It is time for dissidents to unite! (Score:2)
Come on!
Sheesh...
--Joey
Re:It is time for dissidents to unite! (Score:3, Funny)
Kintanon