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!

New Royalty Rates Could Kill Internet Radio

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the one-of-my-favorite-things-about-the-internet dept.

Music 273

FlatCatInASlatVat writes "Kurt Hanson's Radio Internet Newsletter has an analysis of the new royalty rates for Internet Radio announced by the US Copyright Office. The decision is likely to put most internet radio stations out of business by making the cost of broadcasting much higher than revenues. From the article: 'The Copyright Royalty Board is rejecting all of the arguments made by Webcasters and instead adopting the "per play" rate proposal put forth by SoundExchange (a digital music fee collection body created by the RIAA)...[The] math suggests that the royalty rate decision — for the performance alone, not even including composers' royalties! — is in the in the ballpark of 100% or more of total revenues.'"

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

surprised??? never... (4, Insightful)

advocate_one (662832) | more than 7 years ago | (#18225044)

they want to kill the little guys off and just have the field to themselves.

Re:surprised??? never... (4, Insightful)

Goldberg's Pants (139800) | more than 7 years ago | (#18225074)

The problem is that most people aren't going to know about this. What I'd propose is that ALL internet radio stations that will suffer by this stage a day or two of action, synchronized. The busiest hours are probably 9am-5pm EST, so go black for one day, with a message explaining why.

The only reason the RIAA keeps getting away with this shit is because nobody is willing to stand up to them. If the radio stations banded together for one day of action to draw attention to the issue, maybe something will change, but it's gotta be done very soon, as I believe they only have two weeks to appeal.

The only stations I listen to are independent and have no RIAA music, but I really don't want to see the option go away. If it does, what are we left with? Your local Clear Channel owned station, and other "genre of the week" stations that satisfy nobody.

Re:surprised??? never... (4, Interesting)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 7 years ago | (#18225162)

Don't do it that way. Have a message playing in between the songs about the looming threat. Have several different messages in between songs about what the people can do. (Maybe key person to contact or website to go to.)

A person is more likely to listen more than 30 seconds of the important message if there is some payoff (more music) and a station is more willing to do something like that than lose all or most of their audience to a competitor who isn't doing the blackout thing.

Re:surprised??? never... (5, Insightful)

Dred_furst (945617) | more than 7 years ago | (#18225278)

theres another solution, switch servers to one that isn't based in an RIAA controlled country.

Re:surprised??? never... (4, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 7 years ago | (#18225708)

theres another solution, switch servers to one that isn't based in an RIAA controlled country.


Dred,
you have hit on the ultimate solution to all idiotic intellectual property laws. In some years, it will have been a good thing that the Internet caused the end of IP as we know it. Stories like this one, showing how little the "gatekeepers" of recorded music really understand about how people use their product, are starting to pop up at such an alarming rate that the crash must be near.

Re:surprised??? never... (2, Informative)

tepples (727027) | more than 7 years ago | (#18225970)

theres another solution, switch servers to one that isn't based in an RIAA controlled country.
Good luck. Almost all countries with high-speed access to the Internet are members of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works.

Re:surprised??? never... (4, Interesting)

Znork (31774) | more than 7 years ago | (#18225344)

I dont have that much against mandatory royalties on revenue generating activities. If we truly need an 'incentive' for creativity they're more compatible with a free market than monopoly rights. And they're far easier to measure and manage for the least damage/most benefit to the economy.

The first problem with the current setup is that it's put under industry administration (whose interests are vastly divergent with both most musicians and the public, witness the current example), when in fact it's a tax and should be under government administration. That way it'd be subject to the same constraints as other taxation forms; is it reasonably equitably collected, do we get our money's worth from the spending (ie, does it finance as many artists and creators as possible for the money we're willing to spend?), is this a reasonable level of expenditure? What's more, we could actually measure the number of new works and how they change depending on the level of spending so we could finally get real data rather than imaginary numbers made up to support organized con men.

The second problem is that the RIAA corps are excluded. If we need an incentive for creative endeavors, _any_ revenue generating activity using 'copyrighted' material should be subject to the same taxation, wether plays on the radio, sales over the internet or the printing of CD's. Remove the 'copy' aspect of 'copyright' and replace it with a generalized non-transferrable 'incentiveright'. Allow free copying, printing and distribution of materials, let anyone from your local supermarket to online shops freely copy the material, as long as they pay a percentage of any revenue as 'incentive tax'/'royalty', and make sure the incentive actually goes to the creators. And make sure it goes to them in appropriate portions to maximise creativity.

Imagine the possibilities; you could go to the local supermarket and print a CD with whatever tracks you want on it. You could buy an USB disk of the nights music at a club. You could get a complete recording of the show when you exit a concert. Without copyright but with a simple levy on the revenue, whole hosts of new business and value opportunities would open up, while still maintaining a (more measurable) incentive for creativity.

Re:surprised??? never... (4, Insightful)

digitig (1056110) | more than 7 years ago | (#18225694)

The first problem with the current setup is that it's put under industry administration (whose interests are vastly divergent with both most musicians and the public, witness the current example), when in fact it's a tax and should be under government administration. That way it'd be subject to the same constraints as other taxation forms; is it reasonably equitably collected, do we get our money's worth from the spending (ie, does it finance as many artists and creators as possible for the money we're willing to spend?), is this a reasonable level of expenditure? What's more, we could actually measure the number of new works and how they change depending on the level of spending so we could finally get real data rather than imaginary numbers made up to support organized con men.
So we would only have access to music that the government approves of? Bad luck all the acts who are critical of the government, from Pete Seeger through Steve Earle to The Dixie Chicks, and bad luck any genres that are percieved as "evil", from blues and rock 'n' roll ("the Devil's music") to Gangsta Rap ("promotes violence"). Do you really want your senator choosing what you can listen to? Then you must have more trust in your government in the USA than I have in mine here in the UK. Having these choices in the hands of industry may be bad, but passing it to government looks to me to be even worse.

Re:surprised??? never... (1)

zotz (3951) | more than 7 years ago | (#18225826)

"Do you really want your senator choosing what you can listen to? Then you must have more trust in your government in the USA than I have in mine here in the UK."

I get this point, but one thing to consider is that it is already in the hands of the government as they make the laws which give copyright teeth in the first place. This is not a free market game here.

all the best,

drew

Re:surprised??? never... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18226244)

So we would only have access to music that the government approves of?
Huh? Are you going for a world record for the least logical non-sequitur here? Since when did placing the government in charge of collecting revenue automatically lead to censorship?

you must have more trust in your government in the USA than I have in mine here in the UK. Having these choices in the hands of industry may be bad, but passing it to government looks to me to be even worse.
Ok, name one single instance in which the current UK government has attempted to have "evil" music genres banned, or one single instance in which the current UK government has attempted to have music critical of it banned. Or, come to that, one single other act on its part that leads you to believe that giving it the authority to collect revenues from compulsorary licensing would inevitably lead to censorship.

Look, even the BBC regularly broadcasts material that many people consider offensive, and material intensely critical of the government. If the government was intent on censorship of "immoral" broadcasting, why the hell did it not stop the BBC from broadcasting that Jerry Springer opera thing? (Answer: because the government is not intent on censorship.) If the government was intent on censorship of criticism, why the hell is John Humphreys not in prison? (Answer: because the government is not intent on censorship.)

You are clearly paranoid, old chap. I suggest you sit back, have a nice relaxing cup of tea, and contemplate the possibility that the government might, just possibly, have bigger things to worry about than persecuting you.

Re:surprised??? never... (4, Insightful)

KKlaus (1012919) | more than 7 years ago | (#18225776)

No offense, but this is a terrible idea. Who has the authority to decide what is "valuable"? Britney spears was very popular. Does that make her more valuable? Andy Mckee is a fabulous musician, but relatively obscure. Is he then less valuable, or more because what he does is more difficult and complex?

Whatever you think is the answer is irrelevant, because the point is that a huge number of people will disagree with you. Whatever answer is legislated, a lot of people are going to be upset when, in their opinion, they're spending money incentivising the wrong thing. And what if I don't listen to music? Am I exempt, or is funding the pleasures of others a reasonable thing to be required of me?

I don't know why having some sort of committee deciding what artists should be paid seems appealing, and that is what it would ultimately come down to. The free market _can_ work here, it just doesn't because we have stupid copyright laws, and a cartel that no one seems willing to take on. That doesn't make a nonsensical socialist program the answer.

Socialised music? (1, Offtopic)

poptones (653660) | more than 7 years ago | (#18225782)

So we still don't have health care for a huge chunk of the population that doesn't require them to forfeit their solvency, but at least they have easy access to pop music.

Yeah, sounds great. Especially that part where my money is taken by force and funneled into some coffer to be doled out to an industry I despise and religions I disdain.

Re:surprised??? never... (1)

madkowboy (1071332) | more than 7 years ago | (#18226332)

Excuse me,I dont need incentive to be creative,I am creative by design.I cant turn it on and off like some Hallmark card guy.After the creation comes the very intense and expensive part of making it available to the end user.Thats the part I need to be reimbursed for.Thats my time,my effort,my money.If you dont like it,dont buy it.But dont think just because you dont want it that its not worth anything.The college culture and filesharing destroyed what was left of musicians livelyhood.Sure there are musicians making money still,the undeniable greats...,but more proportionately,the hallmark guys of music.As a Producer i understand what i get for what i put in and trust me the producers and engineers are the ones doing all the work,to make silk purses out of sows ears that some kid signed to a label.We work for small percentages,after recoupment of costs,and if we dont have a system enforced by law how do we get paid...we dont.Are you willing to put monthes of your life into something only to get screwed out of your livelyhood?I dont agree with the riaa completely but if you have been listening my works for free you cant say anything relevant to the discussion.I dont get free dental or free shoes,neither should you get free entertainment.I'll show you my tits but it will cost you a buck,which you are more than willing to pay.how come?you got into the internet radio business to be a business right?profit right?easy money right?No I think i need to be paid before any of you make one single dime off of my works.Because its WORK dammit.

Re:surprised??? never... (0, Redundant)

gerrysteele (927030) | more than 7 years ago | (#18225440)

The only reason the RIAA keeps getting away with this shit is because nobody is willing to stand up to them.

Screw them. If they are going to do stuff like this, there is only one inevitable consequence, music piracy will go through the roof. In turn this will hurt them. It may take a few years, but i'm guessing we won't need to do anything to bring the RIAA cartel down. The market will do it for them. When they fail their mandate to protect their member's sales (Sony, Warner etc.) and instead hurt them, it will all level out.

Clear Channel loses big, too (5, Interesting)

zeropointburn (975618) | more than 7 years ago | (#18226290)

Disclaimer: The company I work for is owned by Clear Channel. These comments are my own views and do not reflect the views of my employers.

  Have you considered who will be paying the most? This year, every Clear Channel station in the top 100 markets will be simulcast streaming. That's on the order of 1,300 stations, +/- 100 or so. Since I've already done the math, I'll clue you in.
  Using an average of one song per four minutes, each station will be playing 131,400 songs per year. That's $144.54 per station per listener. TFA quotes 500 listeners as average; that works out to:

100 listeners: $14,454 --- 500 listeners: $72,270 --- 1,000 listeners: $144,540

At 1,300 stations or so, that means this ruling will cost Clear Channel:

100/station: $18.8m --- 500/station: $94m --- 1,000/station: $188m

I can tell you firsthand they are not making that kind of revenue on their streaming side. Clear Channel stands to lose on the order of $100m this year. Ad revenue might help offset it next year, but we're still looking in the range of $100m or so for 2008 as well. CC most definately did not sign up to lose $150-300m in the next two years; it's really not a good time.

On a side note: If you want to hear something new on a Clear Channel station, call in or email the PD (production director). Tell him or her you want to hear it. Ask them to check CCADS ('seecads'). If it's not available, tell them to request it from Bobby Leach. Offer to lend them your cd, if it's safe for radio play. Call in or email your favorite jock; tell them to bug their PD about getting the track. Get your friends to request it. If you know people in other major cities, ask them to do the same. If you're not asking the impossible, they will listen and your favorite track will get played. As a bonus, if it gets into the system, anyone can request it in any city and they won't have as much hassle.

Re:surprised??? never... (4, Interesting)

jakoz (696484) | more than 7 years ago | (#18225520)

What surprises me is how this is assumed to have an effect on internet radio.

I am a shoutcast fiend. I scan the top stations every day or two. Hardly any of the stations (even the popular ones) play RIAA music.

Why would it make any difference what they charge if it doesn't get played? They should be paying people to get their shit out there to get it on the air. If they don't (and they won't) then something else will be.

I would say that I welcome the coming revolution, except that it's so far underway that I'd be missing the boat. Their content is shit, and everyone except the marketing guys recognize it...

Re:surprised??? never... (2, Insightful)

dcollins (135727) | more than 7 years ago | (#18226282)

"Hardly any of the stations (even the popular ones) play RIAA music."

Does that make a difference? I'm an indie musician, and to my understanding any time a song gets played, a royalty should be paid to a collection agency like BMI or ASCAP. (Possibly based on a reasonable survey technique.) And that money comes back to the writer, publishing rights holder, etc., regardless of whether it's RIAA or not.

Can someone please correct this information if I'm wrong? (A small number of internet stations that have played my band required signed wavers foregoing any royalties.)

Re:surprised??? never... (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 7 years ago | (#18226000)

That way my thought exactly. Why are they acting suprised?

We little people are just consumers, 'go out and consume and pay us'.

Fine by me (3, Insightful)

JackMeyhoff (1070484) | more than 7 years ago | (#18225050)

Why? It is like all issues of abuse, Patents abuse, music / video media abuse, software patents etc Let them do it, then what happens? Nobody uses their product. Then what? They start to backtrack. Let the system just eat and destroy itself from withing then come the meltdown a new dawn of change comes. Let them get their way and see how long it lasts, all it takes is people to stand up and say enough. Do you really need the shit they produce? No you dont NEED it.

Re:Fine by me (1, Flamebait)

drkfce (932602) | more than 7 years ago | (#18225070)

Don't underestimate how much punishment the average American is willing to take when it comes to something that they are addicted to. Just look at gasoline.

Re:Fine by me (-1, Troll)

JackMeyhoff (1070484) | more than 7 years ago | (#18225096)

Self control is a very difficult concept isnt it. It is called Emotional Intelligence, must be quite low over there.

Re:Fine by me (1)

xtracto (837672) | more than 7 years ago | (#18225688)

Yes and... no.

See the nice thing (for the RIAA cartel) is that, they dont care about *your* music taste because it is only a tiny statistical anomaly. The "famous" artists you see and hear about everywhere are the artist that the "average American" likes to play. Referring about the other poster who made the letter for the RIAA, he states that the only thing that plays on the radio are songs that he does not buy. But then again, that is because his listening tastes comprise a statistical anomaly in the eyes of the RIAA.

What will happen with internet radio is that, the stations that do not want to pay the RIAA will die. And then, you will start to see lots of stations that play the same shit that is played in every other place, which is what the majority of what your "Average American" likes to listen, which means that, it is what is going to leave the bucks to the RIAA.

So, at the end, the "Average American" is not going to take any kind of punishment because the music she likes to listen is what they will play in the majority of places.

It blows my head to think how can you people let those corporations do that... we (as non-americans) can not really do anything against them if you do not fight but shit, those corporations are yours and the "average american" seems to be so used to be screwed by the ass that they lost the repulsion and is even starting to like it...
WAKE FUCKING UP!

sorry for that last frustration rant.

Re:Fine by me (1)

gravesb (967413) | more than 7 years ago | (#18225834)

You do realize that most of the large music companies are headquartered outside of the US, right?

Re:Fine by me (1)

johnlcallaway (165670) | more than 7 years ago | (#18225700)

Which is less expensive in the US than in most other countries in the world....

Re:Fine by me (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18225080)

This is the approach I use at my job (I work for Microsoft :) I got fed up and tired fighting features in our product and stupid bugs and design issues. Now I take the approach of if they want shit, fine lets ship shit :) They want to cut cut cut fine, less work for me. They want this that and the other, fine by me. Eventually sombody will have to come along and fix the mess (some international student - common slave lavour at MSFT these days- most likely) because no FTE wants the headache. We spend most of our time trying to punt some issue to some other team :)

Re:Fine by me (1)

BarneyL (578636) | more than 7 years ago | (#18225270)

Internet radio is a very small part of the market and I suspect the majority of listeners are using the online versions of broadcast stations (the BBC gets good listening figures outside of the UK thanks to its' streaming).

If the record companies double their profit on 90% of their sales they're not going to loose any sleep over the other 10% that have to close down.

Need? (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 7 years ago | (#18226022)

No of course you dont *need* it, its entertainment. its optional.

But, that lack of 'need' didnt stop the *AA's from becoming some of the most powerful entities on the planet.

Shouldn't the title be.... (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18225062)

"New Royalty Rates Could Kill (Legal) Internet Radio"?

Re:Shouldn't the title be.... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18225326)

And then they get NO money at all.

Actually, that's kind of good.

Video killed the radio star (3, Funny)

GroeFaZ (850443) | more than 7 years ago | (#18225090)

then Internet killed the video star. Then Greed killed the Internet radio star and pissed on all of their graves.

XM/Sirius hookwink Congress with "internet radio" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18225106)

XM/Sirius gave "intenet radio" as one reason why the two firms should be allowed to merge, in Congress, yesterday. "We will keep prices in check and allow other concessions if allowed to merge...", Riiight. People using internet radio are NOT going to pay for satellite radio - for one, internet radio is low quality, transcoded nearly always, gain-ridden garbage, and here today and probably not on the air tomorrow. Hood-winking Congress. What's new?

Re:XM/Sirius hookwink Congress with "internet radi (1)

JackMeyhoff (1070484) | more than 7 years ago | (#18225114)

Isnt price control illegal? Dont they cry that price control by oil cartels is illegal, yet they wish to do this in other industries such as music media, books publishing and game publishing etc? Pot, meet the kettle.

Re:XM/Sirius hookwink Congress with "internet radi (1)

j00r0m4nc3r (959816) | more than 7 years ago | (#18225176)

If you remember, they were found guilty of price fixing some years ago. Remember the whole RIAA settlement thing where they sent 100's of thousands of worthless CDs to libraries across the country as part of the settlement? The RIAA is a real classy, honorable organization...

Pandora's marketing data alone is worth millions (3, Interesting)

Com2Kid (142006) | more than 7 years ago | (#18225108)

Pandora knows what I am listening to every second of the day that I am listening to music. They have , literally, a perfect listener profile of me, created by myself!

If they cannot find a way to monitize the living daylights out of that, then they need to hire some better mathematicians...

Re:Pandora's marketing data alone is worth million (1)

chakmol (88099) | more than 7 years ago | (#18225290)

If they cannot find a way to monitize the living daylights out of that, then they need to hire some better mathematicians
I should already be monitized (of value). I've bought so many CD's because of unusual things I've heard on net radio. Isn't that what was wanted?

Re:Pandora's marketing data alone is worth million (1)

lixee (863589) | more than 7 years ago | (#18225646)

Pandora knows what I am listening to every second of the day that I am listening to music. They have , literally, a perfect listener profile of me, created by myself! If they cannot find a way to monitize the living daylights out of that, then they need to hire some better mathematicians...
There are people who prefer old-fashioned DJ-mixed music.

Broadening the spectrum of the music you listen to can definitely benefit your spirit. Pandora doesn't...

Re:Pandora's marketing data alone is worth million (1)

BruceCage (882117) | more than 7 years ago | (#18226268)

I noticed you mentioned Pandora and not Last.fm, for the sake of discussion I'll presume you are referring to the service that both Pandora and Last.fm have in common, which is presenting music based on patterns. Let me start off by mentioning that I haven't actually used Pandora apart from the limited front page functionality myself since it requires a U.S. postal code (i.e. it expects you to be a U.S. citizen) and I am in fact a European. Instead I am a subscriber to Last.fm, which (as mentioned in the article) is based in the United Kingdom and available to non-U.K. residents (which coincidently also means it is not directly affected by this regulation).

I'm wondering why you seem to imply that listening to Pandora doesn't "broaden your spectrum"? Thanks to services like Last.fm and Pandora, I myself and many others have actually come in contact with a more diverse set of music than we would ever have without them. Through Last.fm I have personally discovered not only what I'd call my "true taste in music", but so many individual artists that I would never have heard of if it wasn't for Last.fm.

By using methods such as collaborative filtering, data analysis and pattern mining these services are able to predict and assist in finding out about music that might interest you. These systems however do not limit you solely to this aspect, Last.fm for example offers functionality such as being able to listen to tags (which also represent categories). But the former aspect is what I personally consider the most valuable.

So I in fact believe these services do broaden the spectrum of those listening, unlike (in general) Internet radio stations that still follow the "old model" of having human DJs decide what music to play. Not to mention commercial radio which is heavily influenced by advertisers, deals with record labels and in lesser extent government regulation.

Now I would also like to take this moment to respond to the issue at hand. However the solution I myself envision has already been presented by a fellow Slashdotter further down in the thread.

What needs to happen is for Internet radio stations to turn to independent labels. Consumers will buy the music they hear. If Internet radio stations commit to changing the majority of their playlist to artists on non-RIAA labels then the majority of profits will be diverted from the RIAA - they don't get per play royalties and they don't get royalties on purchases. ("Genuine solution is actually really easy" [slashdot.org] )
Regrettably several artists I rather enjoy are signed to record labels who are affiliated with the RIAA (you can verify this using the RIAA Radar [riaaradar.com] ). However, I'd rather have services like Pandora and Last.fm continue to exist without offering these artists than go under because of royalty fees taking up their revenue. I for one refuse to purchase any albums from artists affiliated with an organization such as the RIAA.

Well, (1)

Threni (635302) | more than 7 years ago | (#18225112)

I guess the stations can always pay the going rate for the broadcasting of copyright material. Or just broadcast out-of-copyright music.

Re:Well, (2, Insightful)

Garrett Fox (970174) | more than 7 years ago | (#18225308)

Note that at this rate of repeated extensions (>1 year/yr), there will never be any new out-of-copyright music except for works released to the public domain by their creators' consent.

Re:Well, (1)

Threni (635302) | more than 7 years ago | (#18225524)

> Note that at this rate of repeated extensions (>1 year/yr), there will never be any new
> out-of-copyright music except for works released to the public domain by their creators' consent.

Depends where you are, I guess. Outside the US, there's a lot of decent music available from 50 years ago. If you want to use copyright material, then yes, the copyright holder needs to get paid for it. Seems fair to me. If it were your music, and you made a living from it, you'd want your share, wouldn't you?

Re:Well, (3, Insightful)

eclectro (227083) | more than 7 years ago | (#18225632)

If it were your music, and you made a living from it, you'd want your share, wouldn't you?

With copyrights lasting 50 years after an author's death (in the US) it makes no difference to those who are in the grave. And for those who are still alive, they have no incentive to create new works, which was the original intent of copyright law.

Re:Well, (1)

Threni (635302) | more than 7 years ago | (#18225750)

> With copyrights lasting 50 years after an author's death (in the US) it makes no difference to
> those who are in the grave. And for those who are still alive, they have no incentive to create new
> works, which was the original intent of copyright law.

They'd have no incentive if they weren't going to make any money out of it. That's the purpose of copyright laws. If copyright holders sign over their rights to someone else, then that's up to them, but they are protected by law.

Re:Well, (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 7 years ago | (#18226064)

Depends where you are, I guess. Outside the US, there's a lot of decent music available from 50 years ago.
The article is about the US. So what should people who cannot afford to move out of a jurisdiction with life plus 70 year copyright terms for sound recordings do?

Re:Well, (1)

Threni (635302) | more than 7 years ago | (#18226256)

> The article is about the US. So what should people who cannot afford to move out of a jurisdiction
> with life plus 70 year copyright terms for sound recordings do?

Base their radio station outside US jurisdiction.

Re:Well, (1)

jonwil (467024) | more than 7 years ago | (#18225802)

The only problem with that is that even if you are only broadcasting public domain works or works where you have permission from the copyright holder to broadcast (either because you negotiated specific permission outside RIAA/ASCAP/BMI/IFPI/etc or because the work is licensed under a license that gives a more general permission to broadcast the work), you have to file mountains of paperwork (with RIAA, ASCAP, BMI and other rights holders) to prove that you didnt play one byte of any audio data without permission and even then they may still demand money if the rights holders aren't satisfied that you followed their ridiculous rules.

Opportunity (4, Interesting)

Xiroth (917768) | more than 7 years ago | (#18225120)

Huh. Big opportunity here for independent artists looking to get heard. Wonder if this'll backfire like...well, just about every other money-grabbing scheme from the RIAA and co.

When will they learn....? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18225122)

There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute nor common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped or turned back, for their private benefit.
-Robert Heinlein "Lifeline"

Re:When will they learn....? (1)

jimmydevice (699057) | more than 7 years ago | (#18225272)

Mod parent up please.

Haven't we heard this before? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18225132)

Didn't everyone say it would kill Internet radio the last time they raised the rates? Did it kill them?

Let me see... that's right... "Internet Radio Day of Silence". here's the story:

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/05/01/052325 1 [slashdot.org]

Back in 2002! Did it kill them?

Nope.

Go away and quit crying wolf.

Re:Haven't we heard this before? (1)

de_valentin (934164) | more than 7 years ago | (#18225438)

Well I just have a question, What is the big difference between conventional radio (that i receive in digital quality over satelite (which by the way i can record using my satelite recorder)) and internet radio ??? Isn't internet radio the newest form of radio as it already exists? And wasn't radio the best commercial for ever? so why are they trying to squeeze more and more ??

Re:Haven't we heard this before? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18225686)

Are you a fucking idiot? Do you even listen to internet radio? The great blackout of 2002 certainly DID happen, and it certainly DID kill off a large number of streaming stations. Even SomaFM (who, by the way, is having trouble keeping in the black these days thanks to the current royalties) went silent for almost a year before coming back--but many stations simply did not. Others, like Flaresound, moved to Europe simply to get away from stupid American laws.

Why not donate instead? (1)

JackMeyhoff (1070484) | more than 7 years ago | (#18225136)

Why dont more and more people use the Donate method of payment just like open source projects? This way you pay what the real value of the product is to YOU and it is on good will, you are not forced to pay more than the real perceived value to you. If you stop paying then, well the project / product may no longer be available. Isnt this natural selection :) Not that I like the concept of money in the first place (Im a Utopian Socalist :) )

Re:Why not donate instead? (2, Funny)

karmatic (776420) | more than 7 years ago | (#18225238)

Why dont more and more people use the Donate method of payment just like open source projects?

Because very few people actually donate money to open source projects?

Re:Why not donate instead? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18225244)

grow up kid. Most people are just leeches who take what they can get. especially the twats on here always bitching about DRM, mainly because it stops them acting like thieves.

Re:Why not donate instead? (3, Insightful)

Oligonicella (659917) | more than 7 years ago | (#18225704)

The answer to that should be self-evident. People are cheapskates. They will sit and whine about the expense of things, but then will refuse to donate money to individuals who actually try to make a living by the cheapskates' suggestions. Just shows the "I want it all free" crowd are hypocrites and don't really want anything more than "free".

You get what you pay for.

By the way "Utopian Socialist", I have an outdoor structure I need built. Come on over and build it and I will give you some writing in exchange.

Only here to help the... artists (2, Insightful)

280Z28 (896335) | more than 7 years ago | (#18225144)

The RIAA has a responsibility to bring more money for the music artists. Unfortunately they misread "going above and beyond to help the people you represent" as "going above and beyond anything... hey Bob who is it we say we're representing again? <Music artists!> Yes, we are only here to help 'music artists'."

"Hey Bob, you hear my youngest started playing the recorder in Kindergarten today? I filled out another WTF1337 form today and we should start seeing the revenues next month. :woot:"

Internet radio, RIP 1998? (0, Flamebait)

jimmydevice (699057) | more than 7 years ago | (#18225200)

Didn't internet radio get killed by the advertisers way back in the late 90's? I thought the unions negotiated a 3X increase in royalties and a inflated listener baseline for payments.

OK...That's solved by not playing RIAA music. (4, Insightful)

the_REAL_sam (670858) | more than 7 years ago | (#18225228)

Right?

Streaming audio isn't a crime.

Re:OK...That's solved by not playing RIAA music. (1)

Eudial (590661) | more than 7 years ago | (#18225324)

Right?

Streaming audio isn't a crime.


But... but... that would be un-american! You're not one of them terrists are you?

Re:OK...That's solved by not playing RIAA music. (1)

advocate_one (662832) | more than 7 years ago | (#18225418)

Streaming audio isn't a crime.

it will be if they have it mandated that it must be wrapped in DRM cruft with crap like broadcast flags set to prevent recording it and you can only receive it using player software that respects the broadcast flags running on tpm certified OS... Microsoft's wet dream, to get Linux made illegal

Re:OK...That's solved by not playing RIAA music. (0, Flamebait)

jb.hl.com (782137) | more than 7 years ago | (#18225522)

...

mandated... DRM cruft... broadcast flags... tpm certified OS... Microsoft's wet dream... Linux made illegal

Just, uh, wow. You got all this from where exactly? Your imagination, perhaps?

Re:OK...That's solved by not playing RIAA music. (1)

Kavli (762663) | more than 7 years ago | (#18225572)

Exactly! --This is maybe the best news that the RIAA-folks could give the independent labels/artists, and probably the listening audience too!

Why can't I comment on what I just read (1)

BlueCoder (223005) | more than 7 years ago | (#18225230)

They are totally screwed when they actually read their accounting sheet.

Divide it up any way you like there are only two or three outcomes.

What would this mean for places like... (1)

mark-t (151149) | more than 7 years ago | (#18225250)

.... itunes radio or yahoo music? I saw references to consequences for radio paradise, live365, and pandora, but not yahoo or itunes.

Re:What would this mean for places like... (1)

psychokitten (819123) | more than 7 years ago | (#18225934)

Since iTunes radio is just an aggregate of links to other external radio stations and nothing more, I doubt they have to pay so much as a penny of royalties in the first place.

Personally, as long as nothing happens to stations like club977 and biodustrial.com, I'm happy.

Retroactive Price Increase? (1)

CrkHead (27176) | more than 7 years ago | (#18225266)

RAIN has learned the rates that the Board has decided on, effective retroactively through the beginning of 2006.


They announce a new pricing scheme late in the first quarter and plan to charge the increased rate from the beginning of the year? How is that possibly legal?

Re:Retroactive Price Increase? (1)

Renfield Spiffioso (982789) | more than 7 years ago | (#18225778)

What increase? We've always paid this price to our Eurasian allies.

time for revolt (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18225274)

Any recording artists not "represented" by RIAA who don't like this should become noisy about it. Say loudly you do not want to be represented by the RIAA, and you without say in your representation piss in their ear.

Yet another time for revolt. This command and control attitude must stop at all levels of governance; whether governance imposed, usurped or voluntary.

What's really wrong with this (4, Insightful)

dbcad7 (771464) | more than 7 years ago | (#18225294)

Unlike conventional radio stations, more listeners costs the station more money. Imagine what would happen if local radio and TV stations were charged extra based upon the numbers of viewers and listners.. I doubt that would fly.

Re:What's really wrong with this (1)

lixee (863589) | more than 7 years ago | (#18225662)

Good point. But all quality radios I know of, are listener supported. (i.e: voluntary contributions from listeners who like the service)

Re:What's really wrong with this (0, Flamebait)

johnlcallaway (165670) | more than 7 years ago | (#18225714)

NPR?? Quality??

Oh .. you mean elitist and obscure radio.

Whatever dude....

Killing internet radio (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 7 years ago | (#18225340)

Like, yeah. That's the idea. Were we, like, expecting anything different?? Wake up, people. Creepy, crawly copyright will soon prohibit remembering a song without paying royalities.

Genuine solution is actually really easy (5, Interesting)

DigitAl56K (805623) | more than 7 years ago | (#18225346)

When faced with the RIAA monopoly, many people propose a boycott that is unrealistic: People won't stop buying CDs, downloading from iTunes, or the like.

What needs to happen is for Internet radio stations to turn to independent labels. Consumers will buy the music they hear. If Internet radio stations commit to changing the majority of their playlist to artists on non-RIAA labels then the majority of profits will be diverted from the RIAA - they don't get per play royalties and they don't get royalties on purchases. It's a double-whammy. If you look at something like eMusic today, which doesn't carry the RIAA labels, you will quickly find that a little digging turns up more great music than you might actually expect. And it's not just Internet stations that should make the change - everyone can benefit from getting out of this monopoly stranglehold. The RIAA might eventually have to propose competitive terms to survive, artists will be better compensated, and labels which are smaller today will be able to grow faster not only because they will see a greater percentage of royalties, but because the best artists will be less drawn to the RIAA labels in the first place.

Perhaps, though, the RIAA is already starting to feel some bite, and this is why their proposed fees are so high. If you're paying 100% of your revenues to the RIAA, you aren't paying anything to the indie's.

Re:Genuine solution is actually really easy (4, Interesting)

DigitAl56K (805623) | more than 7 years ago | (#18225554)

I'd like to follow up my own submission with some further thought. Unfortunately it's either late at night here, or early in the morning, depending on how you look at it, and further thought takes some time ;)

One of the other arguments that is often offered in the case for independent labels is that the music is more authentic, creative, and less 'manufactured'. However, to truly displace the RIAA we should realize that it is necessary to cater to the mass markets that they currently serve. It is difficult to instantly change the listening habits and genre preference of millions of people, therefor an effective program would rely on enough mainstream pop, rap, hip-hop, etc. music to be produced by independents and marketed in a way which reaches younger generations and begins to draw their attention from traditional RIAA artists.

Never in our history have we been so prepared and capable to tackle this problem. Modern music technology and tools in combination with the Internet helps to level the playing field, at least somewhat, such that professional sound is in reach of the amateur through virtual instruments and production software that can be purchased for only hundreds of dollars, while co-ordinated marketing across popular sites contributing to the cause could compete with major budgeting spends by big labels.

If there were enough contributors to undertake such a concerted movement it might be interesting to set up something akin to sourceforge, e.g. a "musicforge", where independent artists collaborated to produce substitutes for mainstream media and served them to Internet radio stations, at least as a beginning, to help drive the change. If mainstream music is really as formulaic as we often claim it to be, in theory reproducing it to a reasonable standard should not be impossible or even very difficult.

Just some thoughts :)

Re:Genuine solution is actually really easy (1)

lixee (863589) | more than 7 years ago | (#18225678)

You're conveniently overlooking monopoly in your argument. It's like saying we should ditch MS Windows; I support the idea and run exclusively Linux on my machines. Yet, everytime I send a .odt to someone, he replies saying that he couldn't open it with MS Office. Same goes for the IE only websites.

What is needed is a grassroot opposition that takes back power from corporations for the common good.

Re:Genuine solution is actually really easy (1)

Explodicle (818405) | more than 7 years ago | (#18225792)

I don't think that's an accurate comparison. Many people stick with Windows and MS Office because they are locked into it [wikipedia.org] , but there is nothing stopping your from buying independent music.

Re:Genuine solution is actually really easy (3, Interesting)

mstrcat (517519) | more than 7 years ago | (#18225682)

Actually the boycott isn't all that hard. I haven't bought anything that gives revenue to the RIAA for over 5 years now, yet I listen to more music than ever. My sources of music are: www.magnatune.com -> Indie music, DRM free, full length previews, easy downloads www.cdbaby.com -> Indie music, great 'sounds like' recomendation, good prices www.spun.com (or any other used CD source) -> for when I just have to have an RIAA artist. Buying used doesn't generate any more royalites for the RIAA. Direct from the artist web sites trading mix cds with friends All in all, there is _so_ much music out there, that if you can't find something you like without paying the 'RIAA tax', you aren't trying.

Re:Genuine solution is actually really easy (1)

zotz (3951) | more than 7 years ago | (#18225856)

"What needs to happen is for Internet radio stations to turn to independent labels. Consumers will buy the music they hear."

Fine, but I will go you one further. They should only play Free music on which no royalties are due. Then they should turn around and pay out the same amount in royalties. Say half to the copyright holders of the music they played and half to fund the creation of new Free music.

If they just play traditional ARR music from "indies" the big boys will just buy out the rights and the stations will end up in the same pickle. They need to find a new game to play.

all the best,

drew

clueless (2)

poptones (653660) | more than 7 years ago | (#18225930)

If you look at something like eMusic today, which doesn't carry the RIAA labels...

Dude, you're clueless. emusic is laden with RIAA labels. Being an "indie" does NOT mean "not RIAA affiliated." I even signed up for their "25 free" promo to check out just how many RIAA labels there are on emusic - there's thousands listed on emusic, and you can bet thousands of those are RIAA affiliates. They carry cocteau twins and breeders (for example) who are on 4ad. And who owns 4ad? Beggars Banquet - and BB is an RIAA affiliate.

Emusic likes to play up the "indie" part - but dont think for a minute that doesn't mean any purchases made there aren't going to help fund the RIAA, cuz it does.

If Internet radio stations commit to changing the majority of their playlist to artists on non-RIAA labels then the majority of profits will be diverted from the RIAA

It's a great idea. And guess what? There are already plenty of places that do this - I can go to Magnatune, for example, and listen all day for nothing. All the stuff they play is their own label.

Doesn't mean squat, because "most folks" want to hear the shit they've heard ten thousand times and aren't interested in expanding their horizons. There's nothing stopping anyone today from starting up a non-label stream and this law can't stop those unaffiliated artists from allowing such broadcasters to play their works. Doesn't matter, because "internet radio" means "radio" and most people don't hear Jackalopes and Wicked Boy on the radio, they hear Micheal Jackson and P Diddy - and that's what they want to listen to online.

Re:Genuine solution is actually really easy (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 7 years ago | (#18225974)

First Pay for play is illegal, yet the RIAA figured out how to get that in place. Indies at least sane indie artists never EVER ask to be paid for airplay. Only a complete and total idiot would do that. Airplay = free advertising and the ONLY way to get more people to know you exist. I think the RIAA should increase the ASCAP and BMI charges to 3X what Radio stations charge. That way the indie artists will be incredibly attractive to the net radio stations and get far more play rotation. A couple of community radio stations around here recently started playing far more indie artists to try and reduce their operating expenses, their "experiment" for the past 2 months has had such a high amount of feedback they are looking at dropping ASCAP and BMI completely and only play indie music.

Granted they are not big stations one only has a 40 mile coverage radius with a town of 500,000 and two towns of 100,000 in their listening audience as well as the suburbs between. But I know that most people that did listen are happy about the change and the last call for public support they had at the end of the indie switch experiment was so great they took in more money for operation than they ever had before.

Indie artists want their music played on the radio for free. Stations like this are taking advantage of that.

Re:Genuine solution is actually really easy (1)

so.dan (939602) | more than 7 years ago | (#18226166)

Thanks to your suggestion

What needs to happen is for Internet radio stations to turn to independent labels. Consumers will buy the music they hear.
, DigitAl56K, I wrote the following email to Pandora, believed by most people I know to be the best internet radio station they know of.

I sent it to suggest-music@pandora.com . It really could have a fantastic effect if others could write them similar emails.

Hello to the person receiving this email,

I'm sure you get a large number of emails beginning with "I LOVE Pandora". Well, I _LOVE_ Pandora. I just cannot believe how good it is. There is a great deal I could say regarding what makes it so unbelievably great, but I'm fairly sure you've heard it all before. So, I will simply get to the reason I am writing this email:

A. I am wondering whether it would be possible for Pandora to: (1) include more independent artists, (2) if it is possible for Pandora to label songs being played which are not part of the group of companies represented by the RIAA as "independent" when they show up, and (3) whether it is possible for the listener to request music which is _only_ non-RIAA/independent to be played on their radio stations.

B. The reason I ask this is: (1) I like to purchase music that I am somewhat familiar with already, and the main way I do this is after hearing a song several times on the radio: When a song which starts to play on the radio starts to get me excited and happy, then I make a mental note to purchase that song. (2) I hate the regular radio, and hate it even more since I started listening to Pandora, since the contrast between the goodness of the two has reinforced my strong dislike of nearly all regular radio. (3) I, and - as you will see if you ever read sites like slashdot.org or gizmodo.com - many, many other ordinary people _HATE_ the RIAA and have refused to purchase music from them. Seeing them destroy or significantly damage lives with little or no care, to see them do this with flimsy evidence against those who they threaten to take to court, and to see how little they pay but a very small percentage of the musicians who create the music that they "own", is enough to make the stomach of very many people turn. After years of reading the horrible actions of the RIAA many of us can no longer buy their music in good conscience. Proof of the existence of a builiding mass movement against the companies represented by the RIAA may be found from reading the comments posted on these sites by the readers of these sites. (Gizmodo has declared this the month of boycotting the RIAA). (4) I love good music, and love to purchase music so long as a large enough percentage of the profits go to the musicians who produce them, and so long as the distributors (e.g. Pandora) get a reasonable percentage of the profits and so long as the companies involved behave in a socially responsible way (I have never heard anything bad about Pandora). Accordingly, I would very much like to be able to purchase independent music through Pandora.

Due to B1-B4 above, it would make it easier for me to purchase music easily if I could see non-RIAA music clearly labeled as "nonRIAA" or "independent" beside the music that is currently playing on Pandora. The only reason people purchase RIAA music is that they are made familiar with it due to their songs being played on the radio. Since my main inlet of music-listening is Pandora, familiarity is determined completely by what Pandora plays.

C. I read an alarming piece of news on Slashdot today. I am wondering how this affects you. (You do not have to reply if you're busy, but I was horrified that your great product might disappear or the profit on your incredible product would be so greatly reduced as it seems it might soon be). I post it below, complete with links, together with some comments made by early readers of the post. The post is called "New Royalty Rates Could Kill Internet Radio", and is found at: http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/03/04/09 30245 [slashdot.org] .
.
.

Payola? (2, Interesting)

Merkwurdigeliebe (1046824) | more than 7 years ago | (#18225382)

Doesn't his counter their payola-intuition?

So, in some cases they'll pay a station to play their music, other times they want to be paid to for the priviledge/right(if given) of playing their music. If you go by the logic of payola : exposure=more popularity tranlates to more sales. However, in this case, they want their exposure diminished for what exactly?

Re:Payola? (1)

makomk (752139) | more than 7 years ago | (#18225436)

Doesn't his counter their payola-intuition?

So, in some cases they'll pay a station to play their music, other times they want to be paid to for the priviledge/right(if given) of playing their music. If you go by the logic of payola : exposure=more popularity tranlates to more sales. However, in this case, they want their exposure diminished for what exactly?


On the contrary, the two fit together perfectly. With payola, they get control over the output of most/all of the big commercial radio stations (who probably won't be hit so hard by this), but they have no control over what gets broadcast on all the Internet radio stations out there (hence why it's worthwhile putting the rates up to something that Internet stations - who probably weren't that profitable anyway - can't afford).

The simple solution (2, Insightful)

mattus (1071236) | more than 7 years ago | (#18225416)

'US Copyright Office' -> Move your servers to a place that is outside of US jurisdictional where the copyright laws are not controlled by large media companies. Last time I checked US law does not effect the rest of the world.

Re:The simple solution (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 7 years ago | (#18226112)

Even if the server is coloed outside the United States, the DJ is still on U.S. soil and still subject to U.S. law.

My email to the RIAA (5, Insightful)

EPDowd (770230) | more than 7 years ago | (#18225560)

RIAA, I am very puzzled. I used to find out about new recordings that I might want to buy, by hearing them on the radio. For quite some time now it seems that Radio stations, AM and FM, all seem to play the same tiny group of music, over and over. I never hear the music I buy, and play at home, played on the radio. When people started using the Internet to make small "Internet only" stations there were enough of them so that I once again had a way to find out about new stuff. How would I ever buy it if I did not know that it existed? This morning I read: "Kurt Hanson's Radio Internet Newsletter has an analysis of the new royalty rates for Internet Radio announced by the US Copyright Office. The decision is likely to put most Internet radio stations out of business by making the cost of broadcasting much higher than revenues. From the article: 'The Copyright Royalty Board is rejecting all of the arguments made by Webcasters and instead adopting the "per play" rate proposal put forth by SoundExchange (a digital music fee collection body created by the RIAA)...[The] math suggests that the royalty rate decision -- for the performance alone, not even including composers' royalties! -- is in the in the ballpark of 100% or more of total revenues." I am puzzled. It seems to me that you are killing the best, largest, and only way for me, and others, to find out about new music from the artists that you say you are representing. For the life of me I cannot figure out why you are doing this. I can't buy it if I don't know it exists. I like Bluegrass, Swing Band, 1950's oldies, Traditional Country, Traditional Western, Western Swing, some Jazz, and several other types of music. I hear a very small portion of this, once in a great while on the radio. But so rarely that it is not worth sitting through the usual tiny, bland, group of stuff that is normally played. Most of it is just not played anywhere except on the Internet. Please let me know how you think I am going to find out about the music you want me to buy.

Please repeat after me: The US is NOT the Internet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18225650)

The americans can do as they damn well please... ... and so will all the rest of us.

Let's be fair (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18225652)

and apply these fees to terrestrial radio also. This would then effectively kill ALL radio. A radio station that claims 10,000 listeners at any given time would owe 1.5 million per year. And retroactively collected should put about 80% of stations out of business. Terrestrial radio would be in big trouble because they have to claim more listeners to get the advertising dollar, but being popular would work against them. So, people, let's be fair and give them what they want and tell them to be careful what you wish for, wishes sometimes do come true!!

once more (1)

Spliffster (755587) | more than 7 years ago | (#18225654)

a nice idea which is probably hard to enforce. the **AA's might have a lot of influence in the western world where such ideas could become enforcable by law. but what will they do against online radio stations streams from countries they cannot control ?

commercial radio stations would probably suffer and that's great, this means less crap "aired" over the tubes :D

On the bright side... (1)

Amphetam1ne (1042020) | more than 7 years ago | (#18225780)

...most of the stations I listen to on a regular basis are located in the UK or Europe.

Appeal, and Sue - Unfair Monopolistic Business ! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18225790)

I have purchased both CDs and iTunes songs that I first discovered on http://www.smoothjazz.com/ [smoothjazz.com] and http://www.smoothlounge.com/ [smoothlounge.com]

If they want to STOP Sales of music - this is the way to go - charge fees so high that it is better to go silent.

That is ok, the garage bands and foreign country music will still stay on the air.

Once again, RIAA's actions HURT MUSICIANS, shut down their popularity, end musicians broadcast time, destroy musicians' careers,
and alienate the very customer fan base the musicians need to survive. Brilliant!

American Musicians - Good Bye. Thanks for playing.

Question (1)

bryan1945 (301828) | more than 7 years ago | (#18225894)

This looks to be based soley on music, but is there a chance that other types of streaming, such as sports radio, may also be affected? I don't care too much about music (I don't care much for today's offerings), but I like to listen to my hometown sports station (610 WIP out of Philly) when I travel.

Do Some Work (1)

fozzmeister (160968) | more than 7 years ago | (#18225900)

It'd be very much better if they started playing music from non RIAA sources. I'd definintaly listen to a station like that if they played quality (as there's a lot of rubbish) stuff that I wanted to listen too.

Lobby for laws to get "equal time" in the end (2, Insightful)

gd23ka (324741) | more than 7 years ago | (#18226128)

This might well force internet radio to take up more and more independent artists
that would otherwise get turned down by the dispensing recording industry,
never see the light of day - and be a great way for indies to get on the air
to a large audience without having to compete with the established artists for
time.

As soon as they see their "mind-share" eroded by people outside their
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payola [wikipedia.org] payola system the recoding industry will turn around
and offer payola or even demand to be put on and lobby for laws to get "equal time".

Re:Lobby for laws to get "equal time" in the end (1)

gd23ka (324741) | more than 7 years ago | (#18226144)

missing a word here:"by the payola dispensing recording industry"

Greed is going to kill the RIAA (3, Interesting)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 7 years ago | (#18226222)

The nice thing about this, is that could help kill off the RIAA. What needs to happen now, is that the established streamers need to set up alternative streams where they use NON-RIAA controlled music. To encourage it, their RIAA controlled stream could slowly lengthen the time between songs AND advertise the other stream in the RIAA controlled stream. Finally, to encourage the music development outside of RIAA, they need to start paying money to the artists. If they could get together as a group and agree on a rate (ideally close to the old RIAA rate), then as a group pay them. Perhaps magnatune will consider taking it on. Once the musicians realize that they can make a great deal more money by not signing with labels (RIAA), new ones will have nothing to do with them. In addition, we will probably see new labels who have nothing to do with RIAA. The final nail in this, that the group needs to go to the same place where radio stations pay out at (it is not direct to RIAA) and get paid their lower rate. It will encourage regular radio to look at the riaa musicians music.

And the problem is...? (1)

PhysicsPhil (880677) | more than 7 years ago | (#18226278)

This is really a case of two businesses negotiating a contract. The Internet broadcasters have two choices: play and pay, or stop. The broadcasters, who are businesses trying to maximise their own profits, are whining about costs being too high (duh). The music types, also trying to maximise their profits, will charge whatever rates the market will allow. If the rates are set too high, broadcasters go bankrupt, the music industry loses a cash cow, and rates come down. Eventually, they'll all come to an arrangement.

In the Old Days Radios Had Tubes (1)

ziny (971499) | more than 7 years ago | (#18226298)

This should help Sen. Stevens unclog his tubes.

So much for protecting artists (1)

randolph (2352) | more than 7 years ago | (#18226318)

After all, one doesn't protect artists from income, or exposure. Bah!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?