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!

Internet Radio May Stream North to Canada

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the enjoy-your-soundtracks-eh dept.

The Internet 73

An anonymous reader writes "With U.S. copyright royalties threatening to kill Internet radio in the U.S., Michael Geist explains why webcasters considering a move to Canada will find that the legal framework for Internet radio trades costs for complexity. There are two main areas of concern from a Canadian perspective — broadcast regulation and copyright fees. The broadcast side is surprisingly regulation-free, but there are at least three Canadian copyright collectives lining up to collect from Internet radio stations."

cancel ×

73 comments

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

Canadian Content Law (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18682699)

Just gotta make sure that 33% of your music is from Canadian artists. Enjoy :D

CanCon's Genre vs. Genre Favouritism (4, Funny)

CheeseburgerBrown (553703) | more than 7 years ago | (#18683139)

Actually, it's a sliding scale depending on the genre. While jazz and classical might have to keep over 40% of the content Canadian, pseudo-American pop music by Canadian artists need take up only 25% of the valuable airtime otheriwse devoted to truly American pop pseudo-music.

Ahem.

Avante-garde Brazilian elevator music, to take another example, has a special exemption that requires only 2% of the material aired be produced or mixed in Canada. John Cage performances are required to have only an 8% Canadian quality to the street noise that fills in the silences.

Also, for some reason, Hip Hop from Quebec counts.

What's needed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18683197)

A station that only plays some good Canadian metal bands. Ie, Kittie [myspace.com] , Kataklysm [myspace.com] , and Strapping Young Lad [myspace.com] .

Yeah, Eh? (1)

CheeseburgerBrown (553703) | more than 7 years ago | (#18683249)

That'll turn this whole sick, sad music situation around once and for all.

Re:CanCon's Genre vs. Genre Favouritism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18690379)

Kudos for the John Cage reference

Re:Canadian Content Law (2, Informative)

Kristoph (242780) | more than 7 years ago | (#18683319)

If only you RTFA you would know that internet only radio stations are exempt from Canadian content minimums.

]{

FUCK CANADA... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18682703)

...where you are presumed to be a pirate [neil.eton.ca] . Broadcast from Mexico!

Re:FUCK CANADA... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18684195)

He's right asshole mods. You hippies talk about the US and the Zune revenue going to the RIAA but look at the CD-R sales.

Not me! (4, Funny)

Stanistani (808333) | more than 7 years ago | (#18682733)

My internet radio station will be broadcasting from Nigeria... just think of the fund-raising possibilities!

Re:Not me! (1)

sunwukong (412560) | more than 7 years ago | (#18683475)

Better keep your contacts back here just in case you need help to move your money back in a hurry.

Canada? Why not anywhere else in the world? (2, Interesting)

vertinox (846076) | more than 7 years ago | (#18682751)

One of my favorite internet stations is Industrial/Techno http://ebm-radio.de/ [ebm-radio.de] and is hosted out of Germany. I would suspect they have little RIAA music as it is, but couldn't you just find a hosting company in another nation? Sweeden perhaps?

Re:Canada? Why not anywhere else in the world? (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18682821)

Getting a minimum 128K uplink with QOS across the pond for signal relay is not for the faint of heart, or the non-commercial of budget. This is why Canada is a much preferrable option for many US-based webcasters.

At the risk of repeating what may have been said already:
http://www.saveourinternetradio.com/ [saveourinternetradio.com] - Bless you, Radio Paradise for leading the charge!

I'd bless NPR for fighting this as well, but the fact is that NPR's opposition to third-channel adjacency rules in the Low-Power FM legal tussles of 1998-2000 helped prevent the FCC from granting 90% of the possible LPFM frequencies across the US, and therefore they have forced many (including my own) non-commercial and community radio stations onto the internet.

Re:Canada? Why not anywhere else in the world? (3, Interesting)

rantingkitten (938138) | more than 7 years ago | (#18685567)

Indeed, my synthpop radio [mirrorshades.org] station (plug!) is similar in scope, playing mostly things from non-RIAA labels and independant artists. I, too, have my server hosted in Germany, and the RIAA can kiss my ass. There isn't a place for people to get darkwave, ebm, futurepop type stuff from conventional radio, and net radio is often the only place to turn, outside the drunken haze of a gothic nightclub.

The thing is, there ain't no Benjamens in doing this; I, like most other webcasters, shell out our own money for our own servers or bandwidth or services like live365.com, and we do it for fun and for love of the music. So far as I know, "terrestrial" stations aren't required to pay royalties in the same way, so why are we?

German stations pay royalties too. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18705111)

German stations pay royalties too. They're just not as insane as the ones that the CRB just approved for internet radio in the US. (Retroactive to 2006 as well). Also, according to US copyright law, a digital music performance (e.g. playing a song) is defined as streaming it to a resident of the US. So in theory, these guys will be liable for their US listeners. They probably just don't have a big enough audience to make SoundExchange want to try and sue them internationally.

This is the same reason that Pandora only broadcasts in the US - they're not licensed internationally. And they're a station with deep pockets - they've raised at least $15 mil in VC money, so they'd be worth coming across the ocean to sue.

Re:Canada? Why not anywhere else in the world? (1)

DriveDog (822962) | more than 7 years ago | (#18723489)

Why not the Bahamas or Mexico or some other place in Central America or the Caribbean? I realize that many don't have the infrastructure and/or connectivity, but some surely do...?

Detain, Try, Convict, and Sentence +1, Legal (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18682773)


the bastards who dare flee to a democracy [whitehouse.org] .

Unconstitutionally as always,
"President" George W. Bush [whitehouse.org] .

Fuck Congress

Video Killed the Radio Star (-1, Offtopic)

biocute (936687) | more than 7 years ago | (#18682777)

History repeats itself. YouTube will kill Internet Radio this round.

Re:Video Killed the Radio Star (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18683053)

You have no idea what's going on, do you?

Re:Video Killed the Radio Star (1)

Clazzy (958719) | more than 7 years ago | (#18683481)

Dunno about you but I prefer music in the background than devoting all my time to watching it. I can't listen to rock music by watching lots of videos, I'd have to search for and play the video to listen to it. Radio 1, Video 0. Besides, video is only good for hit singles.

Re:Video Killed the Radio Star (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18683697)

It may be less about the royalties and more about the Canadian Content laws. In Canada, broadcasters need to have a minimum amount of Canadian content. (Though "canadian content" is a pretty vague guideline)

Re:Video Killed the Radio Star (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18684009)

Yeah, just like when music videos killed CDs.

How about a DMCA abuse station? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18682781)

DMCA has safe-harbor provisions, right? So why not let people upload songs, queue them, and then randomly stream the queue? Technically, wouldn't the RIAA have to file complaints against each file?

Re:How about a DMCA abuse station? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18683229)

> DMCA has safe-harbor provisions, right? So why not let people upload songs, queue them, and then randomly stream the queue? Technically, wouldn't the RIAA have to file complaints against each file?

We could call it "YouPod". And Google could buy it for a billion dollars. And dollar-for-dollar, lawyer-for-lawyer, the YouTube DMCA lawsuit is a fair fight.

The problem is that after Google wins the YouTube/DMCA battle, the MAFIAA will simply buy a new law, DMCA2, on the grounds that the DMCA is obsolete.

They've actually got some factual ground there -- back in the pre-DMCA era, when hosting content cost a small fortune (why, you needed actual server space and a whole megabit of bandwidth, not just that 486 running Windows NT on a 128K ISDN link), getting your account/website nuked from your ISP was a pretty big deterrent. Today, of course, you can find bigger servers in the dumpster, and broadband is ubiquitous.

So after the safe harbor provisions are upheld and Google/Youtube are triumphant, Viacom will slink off to buy DMCA-2. DMCA-2 will be the same as DMCA, but without the safe harbor provisions for service providers. Dollar-for-dollar, the participants are evenly matched, but lobbying isn't only about dollars, it's about personal contacts, and Google doesn't have the lobbyist infrastructure in place to counter MAFIAA on their home turf.

Twofo Goat Sex (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18682789)

http://goat.cx/ [goat.cx] [twofo.co.uk] [goat.cx]

And once again ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18682809)

... companies and jobs move to a third world country. Only one thing to say: Blame Canada!

Already did that (5, Interesting)

TwistedTR (443315) | more than 7 years ago | (#18682829)

About 3 years ago the shoutcast stream i'm affiliated with ETN.FM moved everything up to Canada, and got ourselves declared as a not for profit organization. Since this is just a hobby and no one is making cash from it, it afforded us a greater ammount of legal protection than we could ever hope to receive inside the US. There was some problems gaining the non-profit status, but it wasn't too difficult.

Stop the madness! (4, Interesting)

i_like_spam (874080) | more than 7 years ago | (#18682859)

Moving to Canada, an offshore rig or Timbuktu is not a solution.

Let's stop this madness.

Write your Congressional representative. [ipetitions.com]
Save the Streams. [savethestreams.org]

Re:Stop the madness! (1)

Darkinspiration (901976) | more than 7 years ago | (#18684467)

Of course it is. It's a solution that ignore the problem. But it's still a solution.

On the contrary. (3, Interesting)

jd (1658) | more than 7 years ago | (#18684911)

There is nothing that politicians respond to more than cold, hard cash. Unions are maybe the next most potent weapon, as collective power IS power. Most geeks and enthusiasts don't have the former and have rejected the latter. (Idiots.) With nothing to back up any protest and with no meaningful influence, you can write all you want and all it'll do is occupy some landfills.

However, a move is something altogether different. Y'see, taxes ARE cold, hard cash. And all those listeners who aren't listening to the commercial stations' advertising? They ARE collective power. No listeners, no advertising revenue, no commercial stations.

(In England, pirate radio eventually forced the Government to license independent stations for the same reason. People defected in far too large numbers to the likes of Stockports' KFM and the monopoly crumbled from a lack of listeners. Protests never made a difference for the same reason they won't with Internet Radio. The people who need to protest most have made their voice willfully the weakest. It won't get heard. The chink of money, however quiet, will be. A politician can hear a cent coin falling on cotton candy from a thousand paces. Moving is the only voice left. If you don't use that, you've nothing left at all.)

Re:On the contrary. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18693831)

There isn't a single union that isn't rife with corruption. They always end up doing more harm than good and hurting the people that pay their extortion fees/dues.

It's where the listeners are, not the servers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18704313)

Legally speaking, it's where the company providing the webcast is based, and where the listeners are based. The same thing is true with online casinos. They can't be based in the US and just have a server outside the US. The whole company has to be outside the US, and the owners need to be pretty shielded as well. A while back the FBI arrested some operators of an online casino who weren't even US citizens when their plane flight made a stopover in the USA.

Also, it's just not RIAA music. Legally it's ANY music that you don't have explicit permission from the copyright owner to broadcast. This is a common mis-conception.

Rusty Hodge from SomaFM wrote about moving servers to Canada: [somafm.com]

Gary Greenstein, former general counsel for SoundExchange recently said:

The RIAA and the major labels have take the position that the law in the territory of destination of a transmission will govern and that off-shore webcasters streaming into the US will still have liability for transmissions (i.e., public performances) that terminate in the US. Therefore, moving a webcaster's facilities off shore will not immunize them from liability or the reach of US courts, particularly if the owner/operator still has sufficient business in the US.

The world is bigger than North America... (2, Insightful)

fantomas (94850) | more than 7 years ago | (#18686467)

So what's to stop the radio stations from relocating in another country? What do you lose? Ok it's ashame that college kids and hackers won't be able to run their own *live* radio shows but as long as somebody's got a station set up surely you'll be able to pipe them some content? This here new fangled internet thing works further than you can shout you know. In the same way that here in the UK pirate radio stations moved onto ships and moored outside British waters and broadcast from there, why not just move your stations out to Europe/ New Zealand/ Oz/ Timbuctu?

I give up (2, Insightful)

MichPOSDude (681182) | more than 7 years ago | (#18687811)

The real upshot of all this is... I give up. "They" win. My station will never stream again.

Truth is, everyone can sign all the petitions they want, send all the letters to Congress that they want, but at the end of the day it's still David & Goliath. And I don't like those odds, regardless of how that first David did. I just ran a radio station as a hobby, and it got damned popular for a small-scale, self-financed project. But it's over-regulated and too expensive now.

Fight "the man" you say? Why bother? I don't have the resources or time to do that. It was a fun hobby, that's all. Someone with money and power wants to kill my hobby? Let 'em have it. I've got better things to do with my time, and I damn sure have better things to do with my money. Let someone else fight it.

Stream indie content? Not my bag, man. Besides, there's lots of that already happening. Nobody streamed the content I had solely in the format I programmed - 50's & 60's oldies & nothing else. Groundbreaking? No, but fun? Oh, yeah. But it ain't as much fun as these fees and regulations. Keep it, I quit.

That's what's going to happen to internet radio.

It was fun while it lasted. RIP, RockDoggy Radio.

CRTC (4, Funny)

Malc (1751) | more than 7 years ago | (#18682871)

What? Regulation free? Haven't the Commission for Regulations and Thought Control got anything to say on this matter? Will Americans be happy with receiving minimum Canadian content? Well, I guess they were kind enough to liberate us of Celine Dion (big thanks there guys, it was an honourable sacrifice).

Re:CRTC (4, Informative)

Scott Tracy (317419) | more than 7 years ago | (#18683021)

Any Internet venture is exempt from CRTC regulation, since a 1999 ruling by the commission. It's a very broad exemption too, that's been applied to mobile TV on cell phones, and interactive television. And there's no sign the exemption is going anywhere any time soon. So no Canadian content regulations, and no approval needed to launch an Internet radio station.

Re:CRTC (1)

jonwil (467024) | more than 7 years ago | (#18684755)

How far does it go?
Would something like Verizon IPTV count? (because it uses TCP/IP and travels over "the internet" from Verizon's servers to your set top box)

Unregulated By Choice! (4, Informative)

rueger (210566) | more than 7 years ago | (#18682921)

...There are two main areas of concern from a Canadian perspective -- broadcast regulation and copyright fees. The broadcast side is surprisingly regulation-free ...

Actually it's quite unregulated because the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) chose to not regulate Internet broadcasting... back in 1999. [crtc.gc.ca]

Then again, we're also allowed to say "fuck" on the radio, unlike our American cousins....

Re:Unregulated By Choice! (3, Funny)

brkello (642429) | more than 7 years ago | (#18683589)

Oh, we are allowed to say it too...it just comes out as fk.

Re:Unregulated By Choice! (0, Redundant)

brkello (642429) | more than 7 years ago | (#18683617)

Oh damn...my f<beep>king bad for not previewing what I wrote and seeing the <> would make my joke disappear :(

Re:Unregulated By Choice! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18684565)

But we're not allowed to say booger.

Move North to Canada? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18682925)

I'm a webcaster from Alaska, you insensitive clod.

REDTED-FM? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18683593)

I'm a webcaster from Alaska, you insensitive clod.

Alaskan version of Internet radio: Tube radio, playing songs with a chorus followed by a bridge to nowhere.

Re:Move North to Canada? (1)

/dev/trash (182850) | more than 7 years ago | (#18684615)

No you're not. Parts of Alaska are south of Canada.

Re:Move North to Canada? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18684919)

If I move North to Canada where am I gonna connect my server, up a caribou's ass?

Re:Move North to Canada? (1)

icegreentea (974342) | more than 7 years ago | (#18684995)

parts of canada are north of everything! (if your standing on solid land anyways)

Barbados (1)

denissmith (31123) | more than 7 years ago | (#18683091)

Barbados recently won the second (appeal) round of its WTO case against the US for laws prohibiting on-line gambling. This gives Barbados the LEGAL right to take retaliatory measures. Maybe Internet Radio and Pirate Bay can both find a new home?

Antigua and Barbuda (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18683349)

Antigua, not Barbados.

Barbados or Antigua? (1)

Kadin2048 (468275) | more than 7 years ago | (#18685427)

Barbados recently won the second (appeal) round of its WTO case against the US for laws prohibiting on-line gambling. This gives Barbados the LEGAL right to take retaliatory measures. Maybe Internet Radio and Pirate Bay can both find a new home?


Are you sure it was Barbados? I thought it was Antigua. It wouldn't surprise me if there was more than one country going after the online gambling thing, though...

Re:Barbados or Antigua? (1)

denissmith (31123) | more than 7 years ago | (#18689821)

No, you are correct. The story I had read said 'Antigua and Barbuda', several days had passed and I misremembered. Not an excuse for failing to double check. Thank you both for your correction.

Socan (2, Insightful)

geekmansworld (950281) | more than 7 years ago | (#18683199)

SOCAN and other such organizations take a lot of heat from the digital-anarchy types for collecting performance royalties on behalf of artists. One needs to remember that performance-rights organizations aren't necessarily affiliated with record companies. They're operating on behalf of the artists themselves.

We'd all like to live in a society where culture is free and ubiquitous. Squeezing greedy record companies out of the equation with modern technology is a no-brainer. But let's not forget that organizations like SOCAN are what allow artists to support themselves. Without the revenues that royalties provide, artists can't support themselves. Personally, I'm more they're likely to find a job riding a desk than to "starve for my art".

Someone has to pay for art, and that someone is all of us who enjoy it.

hmm. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18683267)

hmm. Looks like greed will kill more American innovation and businesss. wouldn't it be a huge irony if the American small independent press was stationed in foreign countries. hope that the folks up north have the guts to tell US special interests to fuck off, our congress does not.

So let me get this straight ... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18683365)

I'm too lazy to read TFA, but the summary says that to escape royalties companies will flee north, where the only problem is the royalties?

I soon expect (1)

stonedcat (80201) | more than 7 years ago | (#18683383)

That the US will blame Canada.

North? (3, Insightful)

punker (320575) | more than 7 years ago | (#18683461)

Viva el Mexico!

Re:North? (2, Funny)

CptNerd (455084) | more than 7 years ago | (#18684209)

So, Wall of Voodoo will just have to change the lyrics a bit:
I'm on a Mexican (Internet) Radio"...

Pandora (1)

TrevorB (57780) | more than 7 years ago | (#18683525)

Maybe we'll legally be able to get Pandora now?

(Pandora has heavy non-US disclaimers, but appears to work just fine north of the border.)

who else dreads the innevitable (1)

hxnwix (652290) | more than 7 years ago | (#18683583)

Namely, that, in the name of "harmonizing Canadian and American law," Canada will institute a fee schedule worse than ours? Because, then, in the name of "harmonizing Canadian and American law," we would - obviously - need to institute a fee schedule worse than Canada's.

It would be like an arms race where the participants only hurt themselves... or like the evolution of international copyright law, if you will. OK, yeah, I know what you're thinking. It would be exactly like the evolution of international copyright durations.

FUBAR.

Cool, more Canadian content worldwide! (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 7 years ago | (#18683613)

I once flew to a writer's conference on Canada Council grants, and hearing more Nelly Furtado is allright by me!

Copyright killed the internet star (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 7 years ago | (#18683633)

Copyright killed the internet star

I don't care who or what you are
This damn time you've gone too far
We're gonna create a copyright czar
This is the way we raise the bar
cuz Copyright killed the internet star

Chorus

Re:Copyright killed the internet star (1)

dotoole (881696) | more than 7 years ago | (#18685395)

Give it ten more years and we'll be singing "The Internet killed the Copyright Whores".

Ehm... (1)

Net_Wakker (576655) | more than 7 years ago | (#18683753)

Should that not be "stream south from"?

Re: Internet Radio May Stream North to Canada (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18684025)

That's a bad idea. The stream will just freeze and then they'll play hockey on it.

Freetrade for the plebs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18684935)

Internet broadcasting and national laws are oxymorans.
Freetrade for the plebs.

Broadcasting channel is meaningless term (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18685031)

Broadcasting channel is a term, which describes a fairly limited amount of frequences, which can be used for limited number of public broadcasting channels.
Internet content streaming does not have this limitation, therefore the term in this context is completely meaningless, with all the related implications, eg. taxing each "internet channel".

Location? (1)

davidmillions.com (1086903) | more than 7 years ago | (#18685433)

If it's internet radio, why would whether it's hosted in US and Canada matter? It's played online anyway right?

Oh the irony (2, Insightful)

Khyber (864651) | more than 7 years ago | (#18686353)

This is tagged 'blamecanada' yet most of this shit originates from the USA. I'm living/from the USA, WHAT THE FUCK ARE THE REST OF YOU SMOKING? Do you fuckers need a clue-by-four upside your fucking hypocritical heads?

Re:Oh the irony (1)

spyrochaete (707033) | more than 7 years ago | (#18687597)

Every story with "Canada" in the title gets that stupid tag. I'm really tired of it. It was cute the first 3 times. The subsequent 500 times went from cheesy to frustrating to insulting pretty quickly. If I could omit that one tag somehow I'd do it in a heartbeat.

Re:Oh the irony (3, Informative)

syntaxglitch (889367) | more than 7 years ago | (#18688933)

This is tagged 'blamecanada' yet most of this shit originates from the USA. I'm living/from the USA, WHAT THE FUCK ARE THE REST OF YOU SMOKING? Do you fuckers need a clue-by-four upside your fucking hypocritical heads?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the whole point of the blame Canada stuff in South Park to make fun of Americans for not taking responsibility for their own mistakes? I think your perception of irony may be misplaced.

Best Solution (1)

flyneye (84093) | more than 7 years ago | (#18687395)

The best way to avoid the whole mess is to quit playing industry(read "popular music") copyright material.
We have open source for a reason.Much music is out there from bands dying to be heard and will release under an openmusic or other GNU-like license.
Since the Industry(read RIAA,Major labels,Career leeches)has caused this legislation in order to ruin our internet and benefit themselves,let them play with themselves,for themselves till no one is listening but themselves.
Lose the middleman(Industry) and embrace open music.
We are just as able to attract bands as they are.They do it to build their wealth while eliminating competition(us),we can do it to free music for our posterity and livelyhood.
Kind of ridiculous when you think about them,they tell us what is popular and hip since they decided so and we pay them to do it while real talent is exchanged for ease of promotion.
Time to take it back folks and quit worrying about being regulated.

Most "open source" music isn't very good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18704857)

All the "open source" music I've heard is pretty bad. It's like all those crappy wannabe bands with their music on myspace. Open source music doesn't work the same way that open source software does. Open source software is created by people who for the most part have jobs, and are contributing to a shared open source project because the contributors mutually benefit from is (as do the users). But how does a musician benefit from putting their music in the public domain? It's not like they can go to the open source dentist when they have a toothache, or get open source medicine from their free open source doctor when they get sick.

Good musicians need to make money. Professional musicians have to make money, or else their music becomes a hobby.

And if someone IS successful through open sourcing their music, soon they'll see they can make money off it and won't "open source" it anymore.

Anyway, you probably meant CC licensed free music rather than "open source". If it were really open source, you'd just download the band's sheet music and have to perform it yourself!

Re:Most "open source" music isn't very good (1)

flyneye (84093) | more than 7 years ago | (#18712821)

How unfortunate you're an anon-cow.Oh well,I'll answer you anyway.
You've grasped the concept but not the business model.
Music is distributed free.You may want a license that stipulates pay for commercial entities use but allowing royalty free radioplay.The bands make their money off their performance,likeness,retail(t-shirts,posters etc.)and eliminate the hand of the middleman.Promotion?Do it yourself or hire it done.The point is,in light of recent events and say the last 75 years of bad behaviour by an industry who conciders the artist last,there is a level playing field and here is how to force the issue and exploit it for ourselves ,our music and just to free our freedom to choose.No studios or professional technicians need suffer.Just a few adjustments to make to adapt.Lets face it,the industry's bombing.We download music like we own it legally or not.A bad industry is dying whose crimes against humanity are only surpassed by their crimes against sensibility.Just a heads up.
lol, yer right about OSM downloaded ,printed and performed while the audience slugs down FREE BEER.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>