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!

60-Day Reprieve For Internet Royalty Rate Hike

kdawson posted more than 7 years ago | from the breathe-easier-then-mobilize dept.

Music 91

Chickan writes "The Copyright Royalty Board has officially posted its ruling on Internet royalty rates in the Federal Register. However, the organization has pushed back the due date for royalty payments to kick in from May 15 to July 15. The publication of this information also begins the official 30-day period for appeals. NPR is slated to file an appeal in this timeframe."

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

Obligatory Simpson's Reference (0, Offtopic)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 7 years ago | (#18971847)

Who shot who in the when what now?

Re:Obligatory Simpson's Reference (2, Informative)

Dr. Eggman (932300) | more than 7 years ago | (#18972311)

Coln. Mustard in the kitchen with the revolver.

In other news, Congress continues to sluggishly review sluggishly review [] H.R.2060: Internet Radio Equality Act. If you write a senator (or actually, house member) perhaps one should mention support for this.

While your writing, put in a bad word about this one [] . Colleges don't need to be wasting time and money trying to stop software piracy on campuse. Oh, and maybe this one [] , too.

Re:Obligatory Simpson's Reference (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18972781)

Uhmm...that's "You shot who in the what now?"

The Rich get richer... (5, Insightful)

Mockylock (1087585) | more than 7 years ago | (#18971849)

If the appeal doesn't take hold, all the little guys will be forced out and the majority of stations will play NOT ONLY tons of advertisements, but also only popular music that brings mainstream listeners.

If they base it on PROFIT gained by advertisements, rather than per song, per user... it will GREATLY improve the chances of smaller bands to be recognized. The only people benefitting are those grabbing the cash, and the already popular musicians and stations... the little guy will get pushed out.

The majority of stations online aren't even making a lot of money, rather than entertaining a specific genre of music.

Please, write your senators.

Turnabout is fair play (5, Funny)

UbuntuDupe (970646) | more than 7 years ago | (#18972027)

How about instead of rejecting the eventual return of royalties, we "support it", but keep extending the future date when they are supposed to start applying?

You know, like Disney always seems to manage with copyright expiration.

Re:Turnabout is fair play (4, Interesting)

SupermanX (1042838) | more than 7 years ago | (#18973531)

Well, I think you have the right idea...
However THIS is what I would suggest.

Require RADIO to pay these fees as well, and remove any option for a negotiated deal with individual studios. Make everyone pay the same fees...

Terrestrial Radio has a much bigger lobby, and if they had to pay similar fees, they would fight this every step of the way. This would force the established media to fight for the rights of the new media... because they have been lumped together.

Re:The Rich get richer... (1)

TheMeuge (645043) | more than 7 years ago | (#18972123)

Or maybe the stations can negotiate the deals directly with whatever artists are not signed up with major labels. Frankly, I no longer see the need for the labels altogether. It would costs the artist a few % to have a professional negotiate with the radio stations that want to play their music, but now they'd get at least the majority of the profit, versus virtually nothing, which is what they get right now.

Re:The Rich get richer... (1)

Mockylock (1087585) | more than 7 years ago | (#18972275)

That would theoretically be the way to go, but considering it's like a mafia nowadays.. you're going to get snuffed if you don't play by their rules... and if you don't play by their rules, they'll create a band and copy your style, THEN profit themselves. With the RIAA and other music authorities now, it's not even about the artist.. they can MAKE a band at any time, but having control of everyone that listens to the band on THEIR internet. Honestly, if they had an all-permitting license to get fees from EVERY person, be it on air or internet... they would charge however much they want. NO matter if they were making BILLIONS per day, they wouldn't lower their prices or slack their leash. SOMETIME it has to stop.. Right now they found that they can actually make money on fining people who listen to even SHITTY music, let alone pop. They're going to go as far as they can until they're actually pushed back.

Re:The Rich get richer... (3, Interesting)

bishiraver (707931) | more than 7 years ago | (#18972977)

Dude, I've purchased more music since listening to Pandora than I had in the previous four years. I've found some really interesting off-the-wall/radar artists with their service, and have spent approximately $130 in iTunes and amazon (via the pandora affiliate links so they get some c-c-c-cash) on their albums in the past 8 months. The RIAA gets their money, maybe, but I want my music. It's anecdotal, but it proves a certain point: internet radio helps people find obscure music; obscure but good music drives sales; sales make more money. In the long run, it will only be good for the music industry: too bad the RIAA is looking out for the suits who want to bolster the status quo this quarter instead of looking to what will make profits rain down six quarters or six years from now. Mainly because they're smelly old men who are only going to live for a few more years anyways, so who cares about future profits? GIMME MY LEAR JET NOW!

Re:The Rich get richer... (2, Interesting)

Mockylock (1087585) | more than 7 years ago | (#18973141)

The only reason I'm really concerned is that my friend actually runs a radio station that promotes local and upcoming bands. They send in music to them, they play NO profit gaining advertisements and send all of their extra CD's and gathered donations (posters, pictures, etc) to the troops.

They ALSO have an air radio station that's low wattage that runs the same music around Pittsburgh.

Now, if this appeal doesn't stop them.. My friend will have to pay an unGodly amount of money per month EVEN for music that was given to them by the bands. But, in order for people to even listen to the new bands, you have to play well-known music as well.
At this point, he'll have to shut it down completely. $500 minimum charge per year is more than enough to hurt someone who's paying for the broadband and electric anyway. What good can come of this? They can't charge air-wave radio stations because they don't know how many listen to it.. so, they GIVE them music to promote songs as long as they play them X amount of times.. and it has to be logged.
They're getting away with EVERYTHING they can.

Re:The Rich get richer... (1)

bishiraver (707931) | more than 7 years ago | (#18973345)

I completely agree! I don't know of any online radio stations that promote local NYC bands, although I'm sure there are hundreds - I don't fall into the hipster crowd anyway, so it probably wouldn't matter ;) I'm just pointing out that my anecdotal experience turns the RIAA's push to get this regulation legitimized on its head. If they killed Pandora, record companies would lose over $200 in sales to me over the next year. Is it really worth that to them? I'm sure I'm not the only one who finds new music with the service and then goes out and purchases a few albums.

Re:The Rich get richer... (1)

Mockylock (1087585) | more than 7 years ago | (#18973497)

Don't get me wrong, I still buy CD's and music on the Zune network.. so I know where you're coming from.

Re:The Rich get richer... (1)

GustoGaiden (1080739) | more than 7 years ago | (#18979317)

I agree! Between Pandora and [] ( One of the best radio stations I've ever listened to ) I've been exposed to way more bands that I actually enjoy than in the 20 years of commercial radio before that. Oh well, if anything, this will further alienate the RIAA from the buying public. I can't even remember the last time the RIAA did something I approved of.

Why should I lobby in favor of the RIAA's clients? (3, Insightful)

jbn-o (555068) | more than 7 years ago | (#18974077)

The corporate studios don't sign that many artists and (according to a Chicago Tribune article I read some years ago) a lot of the artists they sign are indebted to the label for many albums. So long before the listener gets any chance to hear the artist, the label has them under their thumb. The RIAA's legal antics against listeners (often bringing cases before researching evidence against them) is covered here on /.. I'm left to wonder why I should write anyone in support of making it easier to help these labels by making it more likely that their music will be played.

I'm left to think that we should let them raise the rates as high as they think the market will bear. I'd rather work with artists who license their recordings to me so that I may non-commercially share them verbatim with others in any medium. I stopped listening to radio (online and over the air) because what I was hearing is only the "popular music that brings mainstream listeners" (in other words, as far as I can hear that's what they're playing now before any new fee schedule). This is not what I want to hear. Often the online stations I heard were merely retransmissions of what was being played over the air.

Contrary to what is claiming in their emails, I don't believe this means the end of Internet radio. I think it means the end of RIAA tracks on Internet radio and it opens the way for unsigned artists and tracks from labels that don't screw the artist (like Magnatune).

An Alternate model/What's wrong with this picture? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18977701)

What strikes me as interesting is HOW do the record companies get away with depriving musical artists of the rights taken for granted by book authors? I think they fear the internet and internet radio because it threatens the biggest clubbing weapon they have against the artists they sign: Distribution.

Napster was *bad* until they figured out how to do the same thing and take their cut, but what of the artist? How much of the money went to the maker of the product vs. corporations seeking to make the most of their positions as middle men?

I think that the players of the internet industry are every bit as big as the corporations represented by the RIAA. I think Amazon, AOL Music, Walmart, MSN, etc should get together with terrestrial and internet radio and create (or facilitate the creation of) independent labels along the model of book authorship where the music creator KEEPS his/her copyright and s/he or his/her agent sets up an arrangement where they each take a negotiated percentage of sales.

It wouldn't be long before they'd sign artists away from the conventional labels. Prince for instance has released music on the internet and I think titled one album "Emancipation" to express his discontentment with his Warner label obligations. Besides freedom, its probably more financially advantageous for the artist who otherwise must sell his soul to the label to get distribution, marketing, and airplay.

Personally, I just think the RIAA needs the competition. The music radio stations play (terrestrial or internet) amounts to advertising music product with the expectation of music sales. For any other product, the advertiser would be expected to PAY the broadcaster (or media channel)... yet somehow broadcasters must pay the RIAA to create the sales that line their pockets (even moreso than the artists themselves)...

I think this situation represents a good business opportunity for webradio and a nightmare for the RIAA and its quickly becoming obsolete business model. I hope the internet side takes up the challenge.

Re:Why should I lobby in favor of the RIAA's clien (2, Informative)

multisync (218450) | more than 7 years ago | (#18977847)

You are not being asked to lobby in favour of just "the RIAA's clients." The "performance royalty" is collected for all songs played, regardless of whether the artist is signed with an RIAA-affiliated label or not. An Internet broadcaster's choice is to either pay royalties at the rates prescribed by the CRB to SoundExchange for each song played times the number of listeners, or to negotiate separate deals with the copyright holder of every song they play.

The rates are so onerous that they threated to make Internet radio unprofitable, and therefore only an option to big companies and terrestrial stations (who don't pay the "performance royalty" for their over-the-air broadcasts, btw) who have other income sources to subsidize the losses they will inevitably suffer from their Internet broadcasts.

So these rates threaten to put out of business the same Internet radio stations who would be likely to play those independent artists you (and a lot of others) enjoy supporting, further entrenching the RIAA-controlled stations and giving listeners fewer choices.

Bill Goldsmith of RadioParadise [] has a lot of material and links on his site detailing how the rates are applied and what they mean to independent, listener-supported, commercial-free stations like his.

Pub. affairs & non-US still make it overbroad. (1)

jbn-o (555068) | more than 7 years ago | (#18981377)

It seems that you and another poster discuss the issue as if only music is broadcast over the Internet (such as public affairs) and that this means anything outside the US. Perhaps that's just the American bias of /..

Re:Pub. affairs & non-US still make it overbro (1)

multisync (218450) | more than 7 years ago | (#18983813)

It seems that you and another poster discuss the issue as if only music is broadcast over the Internet (such as public affairs)

I find your reply odd. I don't recall myself or the other poster saying any such thing. We are commenting on an issue that specifically affects Internet stations that broadcast music. When public affairs programming is threatened with something like this, submit a story and we'll comment on it.

Perhaps that's just the American bias of /..


Read back a couple weeks in my posting history to see what I think of people who use the term 'Americans' exclusively to refer to citizens of the United States.

For the record, I'm Canadian (go Canucks!) but - like others who have posted in this thread - greatly enjoy the freedom listening to music on commercial-free, listener-supported Internet radio represents.

Go here [] .

Opponents' framing still seems too parochial to me (1)

jbn-o (555068) | more than 7 years ago | (#18997379)

Perhaps I was unclear in my response. I'll try to be more clear. I think the drive to stop this new fee schedule is problematic for a few reasons.

Show me, don't tell me: Opponents of the new fee schedule say the new fee schedule will kill outlets currently open to alternative (for lack of a better term) musical artists. When I listened to US radio (both terrestrial and over the Internet) I found these alternative artists weren't being played; the stations I heard were playing mainstream musical tracks I could hear anywhere. I had no easy way to hear these alternative artists on US radio even under the old fee schedule. So for me the battle to hear alternative musical artists has already been lost.

The claim is overbroad: Fee schedule opponents (including the place you pointed me to) set up sites and promotional drives asking me to help "Save Internet Radio" because "The future of Internet radio is in immediate danger.". My reaction to reading this is to say: no, it's not in danger. There are plenty of Internet radio broadcasters outside the US who aren't affected by this fee schedule at all. When I listen to Internet radio I listen to public affairs from outside the US, so I'm turned off (if you'll pardon the pun) by the overbroad language used by the fee schedule opponents. I think it's important to more clearly lay out the group of people who are adversely affected by the more expensive fee schedule.

Work with those who don't treat you badly instead of those who do: I think it's not too much to ask broadcasters to negotiate deals with artists who hold their own copyrights to their recorded performances, and then play those recordings instead of stuff they'd have to pay SoundExchange to play. I know you don't agree with this, you've said as much elsewhere. When you say [] "If you played their songs exclusively and you negotiated deals with them, you could opt out of making payments to SoundExchange." you make it is primarily a matter of political will to create and support culture we can all afford (or even share). For those motivated to play music, I wonder how much help you can get putting together a US-based musical Internet radio station that plays stuff you can share by looking for works under amenable licenses (including some of the licenses published on or leveraging the gathering talent of sharing-friendly labels that treat artists better than RIAA labels (like

Finally, I'm not convinced why I should care about the concerns of broadcasters who take money from their audience, advertisers, underwriters (a term of art I have unrelated problems with), and so on when those organizations don't play what I want to hear under the current fee schedule.

Re:Opponents' framing still seems too parochial to (1)

multisync (218450) | more than 7 years ago | (#18998441)

Thank you for your reply. I certainly understand why you feel the way you do much better now.

I tend to be really picky about word usage and sweeping generalizations, so I apologize for dismissing your point about there being more to "Internet radio" than the stations people like myself are advocating for. Yes, this issue specifically affects US stations who play music, as well as those of us (many not in the US) who enjoy listening to them.

Since we are discussing legislation that affects US-based Internet stations that play music, I am going to shorten that for the duration of the post to "affected stations."

You've asked me to show you how these fees will kill affected stations that are open to playing alternative music, as defined by you. I can not do that. I have no idea what music, and therefore what affected station, might appeal to you.

There may not be one right now. And it may be true that even the independent, listener supported station I like plays a lot of the same artists I could hear on commercial radio. But the fact is, prior to these new rates, a station like that could exist. I happen to like that business model and, who knows, maybe one day some kid will start a station in his basement that will appeal to you. That station is threatened by the proposed rates as well.

Let's do some quick math. The rates for 2006 are .0008 per performance, which is defined as the streaming of one song to one listener. The station I like played roughly 350 songs over the last 24 hours period. I have no idea how many people are listening at any given hour, but to support themselves and pay their overhead, I would assume it would be in the thousands. They state on their website the number of "active users" (which I assume to be registered users who are logged in to their web site) for this week is 5,871, and the number of "guest users" in the last 24 hours is 19,270. Can we suppose the number is 5,000 listeners per hour? I don't think it's out of line.

In that case, these royalties would cost the station $1,400.00 US per day, or $511,000.00 per year. That is a heavy burden to place on an independently run small business that makes a lot of people all over the world happy enough to voluntarily send them money to keep them around.

I concede it is possible a station may be able to negotiate separate deals with the copyright holders of every song they play. I am not so sure it is possible for a station to draw on a large enough catalog to appeal to enough listeners to sustain themselves as either a non-profit, listener-supported or commercial entity, while negotiating one-on-one with each rights holder, unless they happen to be part of a large corporation like Clear Channel, who can afford to operate their streams at a loss in an effort to keep people who listen to them on their commutes tuned in while at work.

Where is the revenue going to come from to pay these fees you are negotiating separately?

You will need either donations from listeners or advertising revenue. Both require a large listenership, which means a large enough catalog of music to appeal to enough people to pay for itself. Oh, and you need to pay all of your operating costs too.

If you know of an example of a station that is doing this - and I mean the part about negotiating individual deals with the copyright holder of every song they play - I'd like to hear about it.

To me there is no choice there, and affected stations who can not afford to pay the CRB rates will be gone, leaving the AOLs, the Clear Channels, the MSNs etc, as far as what is available out of the US.

But I don't live in the US, so why do I care?

Well, I don't know where you live or whether your country has ratified the WIPO treaty. Mine hasn't, but the US is hammering away at our politicians to bring our laws in line with theirs.

So maybe my answer to you is you should care about the stations you don't listen to being threatened, because one day someone might threaten the ones you do listen to.

Re:Opponents' framing still seems too parochial to (1)

jbn-o (555068) | more than 7 years ago | (#18999595)

The fees for licensing might not exist, depending on what one plays. As I understand it, there is a lot of music to be played under licenses that allow sharing and cost no money. I hate to keep bringing up the same example repeatedly, but lets you download anything from their catalog under a Creative Commons license that allows non-commercial rebroadcast in any medium (in a brief peek I saw some classical music licensed under the BY-NC-SA v1.0, US English version [] ). I don't work for Magnatune nor do I benefit from mentioning them at all; they are doing what I think others could do as well and I believe their catalog will greatly benefit anyone looking to put together an Internet radio station of their own. Getting tracks from them is negotiating a deal with someone sufficiently empowered to license it to you.

To distribute the data, perhaps there's some sort of cooperative model which would let the listeners take on some of the load of rebroadcasting. Ideally, one would visit a website and without any setup or programming skill they could simultaneously listen to the station and share it with others. Would this would cut down on the transmission costs to the point where a consumer-grade "broadband" Internet connection work? This line might be inexpensive enough that many people already have they Internet connection they need to do the job. Some hosters could help drive down the cost of the station further still— has very inexpensive hosting packages with high bandwidth quotas and lots of storage. Depending on how one defines an Internet radio station, a playlist with a bunch of track files could qualify. Maybe you could run a program that concatenates tracks together creating a seamless audio stream.

One of the terms I've been throwing around in a fast and loose way is "Internet radio station".,, and are labels which each stream all of their catalog on-demand and gratis (with varying levels of quality and in various formats—Jamendo and kahvi can use high quality Ogg Vorbis files and Magnatune lets one download 128kbps MP3s with an automated announcer on the end of each track). Are they radio stations? Magnatune calls their playlists radio stations [] and I can't see why they aren't.

Re:Opponents' framing still seems too parochial to (1)

multisync (218450) | more than 7 years ago | (#19002523)

I appreciate the heads up on these music resources. I will definately check them out. (One of the benefits of taking part in discussions at Slashdot is I actually learn something from time-to-time from the people I converse with).

Forgive me for resorting to analogies, but it's like someone is threatening to take apples away from us, and you're saying "I don't like apples anyway. And besides, you can have an oragne, or a banana" and you've given me plenty of compelling reasons to try bananas, but I'd like to keep apples around as well.

I am all for Creative Commons/GPL/Copyleft/whatever-the-creator-desires style licenses. I use and support FOSS software, financially and by using and extolling the virtues of FOSS to other users. I use it at work, and the company paid to support it. It represents freedom and choice, two things I value highly.

To me, what Bill and Rebecca - the proprieters of my faverite station - have done is similar. After years of working for big corporate interests (which is where the radio jobs are in the US) they took a chance on a new medium and started their own station. And they said to their visitors/listeners you can use what we have to offer for free, not crippled or encumbered, just listen to our high-quaility streams and if you think this is a thing of value, that you want to keep around, support us. They've been around for years. Listeners upload/rate/comment on songs, participate in forums, and vote on potential additions to the playlist. They pay royalties to BMI/ASCAP for artists and they've paid the Performance Royalty for years, so they're "good citizens." And because they pay these royalties, artists benefit from their efforts as well. Listeners purchase more music, usually from an artist they hadn't heard before. Many of these artists are independent, and they benefit from the exposure a successful station not beholden to the RIAA can give them.

To me what they have done is very similar to a successful FOSS project. So there's freedom. I hope others are inspired to go this route, rather than the throw commercials, pop-ups, banner ads or what ever at their visitors route. That's choice.

You have exposed me to sources of of music I haven't explored yet, and for that I thank you. I hope we will all have freedom and choice in the future.

Re:Why should I lobby in favor of the RIAA's clien (2, Informative)

gclef (96311) | more than 7 years ago | (#18978855)

You really don't understand what SoundScan is. It's not RIAA music that's covered by SoundScan. It's *ALL* music. SoundScan is being set up to handle the royalties from a *compulsory* license for music. It doesn't matter if you don't want to be covered by SoundScan. It doesn't matter if you signed up to a major label deal. Your music, if it's covered by copyright in the US, will have its royalties handled by SoundScan.

That's why I find all the complaining about the RIAA in these threads kinda silly: it'll make no difference if you listen to indie music only. It'll make no difference in the prices the stations play if they shift to entirely indie music. *Everything* is covered by SoundScan for US businesses (or companies doing business in the US).

Re:Why should I lobby in favor of the RIAA's clien (1)

gclef (96311) | more than 7 years ago | (#18978897)


sorry. typing too fast.

Re:Why should I lobby in favor of the RIAA's clien (1)

Knetzar (698216) | more than 7 years ago | (#18982029)

Maybe I don't understand this correctly.
Assume I have 2 friends that are in bands and I decide to start an internet radio station that plays songs from only those two bands. I negotiate deals with both of those bands to be able to play their music for a certain price and I pay them.
You're telling me that I still need to pay SoundExchange for something? Even though I never played any music that they control.

Re:Why should I lobby in favor of the RIAA's clien (1)

multisync (218450) | more than 7 years ago | (#18983967)

Assume I have 2 friends that are in bands and I decide to start an internet radio station that plays songs from only those two bands. I negotiate deals with both of those bands to be able to play their music for a certain price and I pay them.
You're telling me that I still need to pay SoundExchange for something? Even though I never played any music that they control.

I believe you are correct. If you played their songs exclusively and you negotiated deals with them, you could opt out of making payments to SoundExchange. The trouble is, that becomes impracticable, even if you play independent bands exclusively. Especially if you are commercial-free, which I suspect you would be whether you like it or not, imagine having to play 24 hours of music seven days a week and offer enough variety to attract and keep listeners.

If you are running an Internet music station, chances are you'd like to spend your time finding, playing and listening to great music you love, rather than negotiating with representatives (ie. lawyers or - worse - people who have their heads up their ass but don't know it) from dozens or maybe hundreds of different labels in places all over the place to secure permission to play their songs in exchange for the fee you negotiate with them.

But you are correct. Technically, stations could opt out.

Re:Why should I lobby in favor of the RIAA's clien (1)

Knetzar (698216) | more than 7 years ago | (#18984179)

So SoundExchange offers a service and it's deal sucks. It sounds like they have just created an opportunity for another company to do the negotiations with indie groups.

The only thing I don't understand is why the government has anything to do with this. The only reason I could see them involved is because SoundExchange is a monopoly and using it's position unfairly. There doesn't seem to be any good reason for congress to be involved.

I've read these articles and nothing has explained this very clearly yet.

Re:Why should I lobby in favor of the RIAA's clien (1)

multisync (218450) | more than 7 years ago | (#18984421)

Yikes. Okay, a bit of history. In 1995, the United States (Congress? Help me out, neighbors) passed the "Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act" which basically said Internet radio stations had to pay a royalty to the owner of the copyright for the actual performance of a song, in addition to the royalties they pay to the composer.

Organizations like BMI/ASCAP (which I believe are non-profit organizations) collect royalties on behalf of composers from terrestrial and Internet stations alike. SoundExchange (a for-profit business, I believe) was appointed buy the "government" to collect the performance royalties on behalf of copyright holders. These are collected from Internet stations only.

The rates are set by the Copyright Royalty Board, who recently announced rates would be collected on a number of songs played times the number of listeners basis, at a rate per "performance" that would drive most independant, non-corporate (for lack of a better label at this late hour) Internet stations out of business.

Here's a link [] that explains it a lot better than I have done.

You are correct, another company could offer to collect fees on behalf of copyright holders but keep in mind, that would have to be negotiated with all copyright holders whose songs you played. If only some of the music you played was covered by these agreements, you would still have to negotiate with all of the other record companies whose music you played.

It's a lot of work for someone who just wants to spin discs and make a modest living.

Re:Why should I lobby in favor of the RIAA's clien (1)

Knetzar (698216) | more than 7 years ago | (#18984907)

Thank you for explaining.

I still see this as more of an opportunity for non-RIAA bands.

Re:The Rich get richer... (1)

element-o.p. (939033) | more than 7 years ago | (#18974521)

Maybe not.

If it becomes too expensive to play mainstream/signed artists, then perhaps we'll see a boatload of Internet radio stations spring up that exclusively play indie music.

Hmmmm...I'd better go research streaming audio feeds -- I think I see a potential opportunity here =D

Huzzah (-1, Redundant)

brotherscrim (617899) | more than 7 years ago | (#18971853)

Let's keep prolonging the inevitable! Woohoo!

FIRST POST (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18971861)


Oh dear. (-1, Troll)

Fifty Points (878668) | more than 7 years ago | (#18971871)

Is this another article in need of the 'thievingcunts' tag?

Re:Oh dear. (1)

Fifty Points (878668) | more than 7 years ago | (#18987281)

Troll? That's a little unfair []

The retroactive part (4, Interesting)

i_should_be_working (720372) | more than 7 years ago | (#18971935)

This whole thing is disgusting.

But I have a question about the retroactive part. It seems that not only will stations have to pay more in the future, but they have to pay more for the past year or so. How is that legal? Also, does anyone know how it would be enforced? If a station just shuts down and doesn't pay for the past year, then what?

Re:The retroactive part (4, Funny)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 7 years ago | (#18971959)

If a station just shuts down and doesn't pay for the past year, then what?
That's when the RIAA hop into their souped-up DeLorean, zip back into the past, and make sure your parents never met.

Re:The retroactive part (1)

DustyDervish (1043314) | more than 7 years ago | (#18972651)

Retroactive penalties for newly created laws are illegal.

Re:The retroactive part (1)

AndersOSU (873247) | more than 7 years ago | (#18973091)

unless you right a law that makes them legal...

Re:The retroactive part (1)

DustyDervish (1043314) | more than 7 years ago | (#18982529)

Ha. Too True. That tactic is quite popular these days.

Re:The retroactive part (1, Informative)

laughingcoyote (762272) | more than 7 years ago | (#18972935)

The last time I checked, ex post facto laws were prohibited. It's a bit like the IRS retroactively regulating that you really owed an extra $2000 on your taxes for the past five years, even though at the time you didn't.

Re:The retroactive part (1)

rsmith-mac (639075) | more than 7 years ago | (#18974359)

AFAIK, the original royalty agreement expired at the start of 2006; they've been operating ever since in limbo since a new agreement hasn't gone to in effect. The new agreement then is retroactive because it includes the period of time where they didn't have an agreement because they were tied up in negotiations.

Re:The retroactive part (1)

eMbry00s (952989) | more than 7 years ago | (#18974873)

Wait what? What the fuck?

Retro active law? Where the is your constitution now?

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
(emphasis mine)

This is gut wrenching.

Re:The retroactive part (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18976783)

Mod parent UP!!

Re:The retroactive part (1)

multisync (218450) | more than 7 years ago | (#18980249)

It seems that not only will stations have to pay more in the future, but they have to pay more for the past year or so. How is that legal?

The old rates expired in 2005. Stations continued to pay those rates knowing they would owe whatever the difference was between the old rates and the new rates once they were announced. The trouble is, the old rates were based on the station's revenue, while the new ones are based on the number of listeners times the number of songs played. And they represent a HUGE increase.

Of course, the stations could have just gone dark when the old rates expired and waited to see if they could afford to continue to run their business after the CRB announced the new rates. I think that would have suited the big media cartels just fine.

internet radio (5, Informative)

elmCitySlim (957476) | more than 7 years ago | (#18971943)

I work at a volunteer run radio station in CT. One of our DJs also runs an internet radio station with several volunteer DJs as well. He has to shut down due to this rate hike. He said it went from about 700 dollars a year to 15g a year.

Re:internet radio (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18974229)

15 gigadollars?!?! Holy carp! :-)

More seriously, that sucks. Looks blatantly like they want to stamp out the small stations.

Digitally Imported & are affected (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18976957)

Ari has a blog entry [] about being forced to shut down free streams of [] and [] and what you can do to try to avoid it.

Or... (4, Funny)

bigtomrodney (993427) | more than 7 years ago | (#18971977)

....61 days for those of you using the modern Gregorian Calender.

Calendar (1)

HTH NE1 (675604) | more than 7 years ago | (#18974881)

....61 days for those of you using the modern Gregorian Calender.
Yes, makes your Gregorians nice and glossy [] .

"You know what this'll cost you? Thirty days... hath September, April, June, and Montana. All the rest have cold weather, except in the summer, which isn't often!"

Voice your unhappiness! (4, Informative)

u-bend (1095729) | more than 7 years ago | (#18971981)

Go here [] to protest this bullcrap.

Re:Voice your unhappiness! (3, Interesting)

Otter (3800) | more than 7 years ago | (#18972393)

I'm constantly posting here to explain why copyrights and patents are vital for continued innovation and creativity, and why you "Music and movies suck so that's why I have to steal them!" people are idiots. And I wrote to my representatives the minute Pandora sent me the above link. All the music I've purchased over the last few years is stuff I've learned about from Pandora, Live365 and Garageband, and keeping it legal is what allows me to talk down to you whiny thieves.

If you don't take action on this, you've forfeited your right to ever post moronic "Teh RIAA is suing teh singal mothers!" comments again.

Re:Voice your unhappiness! (1)

digitig (1056110) | more than 7 years ago | (#18972923)

If you don't take action on this, you've forfeited your right to ever post moronic "Teh RIAA is suing teh singal mothers!" comments again.
Hey, I'd love to, because there are some great US-based internet radio stations I love to listen to. Could you remind me who my Congressman/woman is here in London, England? Oh, wait, I'd come under foreign affairs, wouldn't I? Secretary Rice seems terribly busy right now, I'll just have to keep posting those moronic "Teh RIAA is suing teh singal mothers!" comments anyway.

Re:Voice your unhappiness! (1)

steveo777 (183629) | more than 7 years ago | (#18972985)

I purchase all of my music. Every song on my computer, iPod, every burned CD, is a copy of music that I own. I do listen to internet radio stations and I enjoy them. I do not, however, enjoy much pop music. No rapper of the day, none of today's best country or whatever. I'm not a big fan of the advertisement based radio either. And I'm rather aggressive with people who just download everything. It pisses me off.

I do support copyright and patent for innovation. Now, I've tried to educate myself about this issue, but from what I can tell it's going to completely choke off anybody that just wants to broadcast some tunes. Independent or otherwise. And like you mentioned, these 'net stations are how I find my new music, so I hope you don't mind if I complain about the money grabbing recording industry that doesn't give two shits about their artist, but is more concerned with lining corporate and committee own pockets.

Re:Voice your unhappiness! (1)

Sancho (17056) | more than 7 years ago | (#18973129)

I'm constantly posting here to explain why copyrights and patents are vital for continued innovation and creativity
I agree with this, but only to a point. I don't believe that infinite copyright is vital for continued innovation, and I don't think that fair use should go out the window just because violating copyright got a little easier. I don't mind copyright one bit, but I want to be able to copy my DVDs to a central file server so that I not only have a backup, but I can watch them from anywhere in the world without carrying the DVD with me. I also don't think that copyright should enable companies to restrict content from being played in some regions in the world. When I buy a copy of a work, I should be able to do whatever I want with it, so long as I don't distribute unauthorized copies to other people.

All that said, I'm lessening in my stance that copyright is vital for continued innovation. Back when copyright was established, it was undeniably true. The barrier to entry was extraordinarily high. Having a hobby of creating a work and selling it was much, much harder. Nowadays, more and more people have the free time required to create very impressive works--the Internet and much of its content is a testament to that. Dead tree publishing is still expensive, but not nearly as much as it used to be. Distribution is the hardest part, now, simply because we've become so globalized.

And yet, despite copyright seemingly becoming less important, it has become more powerful. The DMCA increased the power of copyright. The Sonny Bono act (and similar laws through history) have extended the amount of time that copyrights are valid, and the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled the laws legal (effectively creating an infinite copyright, as extensions are only a lobby away).

I think copyright is still useful, however most of the additions within the past 50 or so years are awful. They go against the spirit of a limited monopoly, and unreasonably restrict consumer's rights.

Re:Voice your unhappiness! (5, Insightful)

acherusia (995492) | more than 7 years ago | (#18973131)

Damnit. I'm forfeiting mod points to respond, but you hit a major pet peeve of mine there.

You do not get to define the terms of a debate. You do not get to say "If you do not take a particular action that I like you to take, you have lost the ability to debate this without being a flaming hypocrite." You can also lay off the self-aggrandizing holier-than-thou soapboxing, but I don't really care about that.

  I'm probably not going to contact my representative on this issue. I may, because I think this is as much bullshit as everyone else, but frankly I have so much shit going on in my life right now that I just have absolutely no desire to do so. On the other hand, I decided years ago that I wouldn't give the RIAA or the MPAA a single cent, nor would I give them mindshare by pirating. I'm not going to say I've never broken that, but only twice. (It helps that I prefer books and videogames to music and movies.) And you're saying that if I don't take a single action you think I should take I lose the right to bitch about the RIAA? Um. No.

Personally, I'm also not convinced that patents and copywrites are entirely vital to creativity, but that's another debate entirely.

Re:Voice your unhappiness! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18976083)

You realize that in less time than it took you to rationalize your inaction you could have followed the link and sent a message (form-letterish as it may be) to your representatives?

Re:Voice your unhappiness! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18977231)

Of course they're needed! It's a little known fact that prior to the modern era creativity was basically zilch and in a stop-gap measure to make people produce and invent again we came up with the idea of copyrights and patents. Saying we don't need them is practically like telling the whole world to stop singing. You heartless bastard! Won't someone think of the children?!

Re:Voice your unhappiness! (1)

multisync (218450) | more than 7 years ago | (#18981139)

You do not get to define the terms of a debate. You do not get to say "If you do not take a particular action that I like you to take, you have lost the ability to debate this without being a flaming hypocrite."

I agree. It's like people who say "if you don't vote you don't get to complain." What a load of crap. I pay taxes, so I'll comment on the actions of my elected officials regardless of whether I voted or not.

Re:Voice your unhappiness! (1)

sherpajohn (113531) | more than 7 years ago | (#18976255)

I am a lot like you - I would not listen to most of the mainstream big label music if it was free (oh wait broadcast radio is, and I refuse to listen to it), yet I buy more CD's today than I did 10 years ago. Why? - chillout channel plays great music, 90% of it from small independent European labels. If they go off the air, I don't know how I'll find new music to listen to (well that's not entirely true, I can rely on the artist sand labels I have come to love to provide me with new music).

If recording artists are smart (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18972019)

If recording artists are smart, they'll contract congress to support the small internet radio stations and a reasonable fee structure.

If Internet radio is turned into the playground for rich corporations, they'll be locked into the RIAA for the foreseeable future. Who benefits from that?

Re:If recording artists are smart (1)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 7 years ago | (#18972227)

I assume you mean 'contact'.

The only artists interested in overthrowing the RIAA are the ones that don't benefit from their tactics. If you expect mainstream artists to overthrow the RIAA, you're going to have to PROVE to them that the RIAA is bad for them. Nobody has managed yet. Common sense and numbers won't do jack. They need proof.

Having said that, Apple's recent anti-DRM speeches have definitely been a step in the right direction. As more people realize how much more they can do with their songs if they're DRM-free, more will be willing to pay the extra that Apple/EMI is charging. Once someone has tasted freedom, it's -very- hard to get them to give it up.

The RIAA will, of course, attempt to prove that Apple's efforts increase piracy and the non-DRM'd songs are more traded than the ones ripped from CD, etc. In the end, I think piracy will actually decrease and hurt the RIAA's campaign.

Maybe someday we'll even be able to watch high-def movies in our home without the armed security guard watching our every move.

Re:If recording artists are smart (1)

Kurrurrin (790594) | more than 7 years ago | (#18972289)

If you have the money, "contract" is actually the better term.

Re:If recording artists are smart (1)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 7 years ago | (#18972487)

If Internet radio is turned into the playground for rich corporations, they'll be locked into the RIAA for the foreseeable future. Who benefits from that?
Let's see:

Shareholders of RIAA & big media companies (Clearchannel, etc).
Boardmembers and execs at RIAA & big media companies.
Politicians and political parties who take donations from the RIAA and RIAA & big media companies.

What do these have in commom? They are already the ones vested in positions of power. They have no interest in reducing their profits, power, and interest -- so why should they take any action that reduces any of them?

The only reason for legislators to act against the interest of Clearchannel & Co is if they become convinced that individual voters' collective concern with this one issue is more important than the media companies who provide voters with information. Good luck with that, since internet radio as an election issue pales in comparison to the issues the media and churches will be focusing on come November 08.

You know what I'd like to see... (2, Insightful)

Dorkmaster Flek (1013045) | more than 7 years ago | (#18972149)

Can't Internet radio stations just simply refuse to play RIAA music then? This would be great. We'd get stations full of independent artists and labels. I want to see billboard music disappear with what they're doing. They're trying to cripple and control the Internet instead of working with it. They need to learn that this will only lead to their downfall.

They can refuse to play, but... (1)

Infonaut (96956) | more than 7 years ago | (#18972295)

Can't Internet radio stations just simply refuse to play RIAA music then?

Through SoundExchange, they'll still collect [] from the Internet radio stations anyway.

Re:They can refuse to play, but... (1)

Dorkmaster Flek (1013045) | more than 7 years ago | (#18974063)

Wow...I didn't even know that happened. I can't even find the words to describe that. How in the name of high holy F*** is this legal? I can't even begin to understand. Does this apply to ANY web music broadcast or only those based in the US? I can't see how they could possibly collect from anyone outside the US, as they don't have jurisdiction...or so I think. :P

Re:You know what I'd like to see... (2, Informative)

SeekerDarksteel (896422) | more than 7 years ago | (#18972339)

Unfortunately due to the wonder of the compulsory license, that is not an option unless you individually contact every copyright holder and make a deal. This is because the RIAA (or SoundExchange to be more specific) has been given the (questionablly) legal right to collect royalties on any song played on internet radio if the broadcaster does not already have a deal with the copyright holder. Artists then have to contact SoundExchange and pay them an "administrative" fee to collect the royalties conveniently collected by SoundExchange on their behalf. And because the license is compulsory, artists cannot "opt out." So unfortunately, unless someone bands together a large number of independent musicians into a single organization to deal with copyrights, independent music is not a way to get around this steaming pile of bullshit.

An alternate solution? (3, Insightful)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 7 years ago | (#18972795)

Maybe I'm nutty, but would it be possible for an Internet broadcaster to switch to some sort of submission-based format? In that way, artists can submit their own work to the station. Through this process they'd not only hook their submissions to the info on where to send the royalty check (bypassing the RIAA/Soundexchange scam) but also agree to some actually sane royalty rate, terms-of-service style. On an Internet where MySpace,, and the like are full of people who are already putting tracks out there for free, where countless bands with their own actual websites are paying hosting fees out of their pockets to put their free downloads out there, and where most of these people would love the chance to get themselves heard on popular Internet radio stations, it seems to me a broadcaster could build up a respectable playlist in this manner.

Re:An alternate solution? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18975707)

Thats how we do it at - Internet streaming radio. All artist submitted. Shael Riley has some really cool nerdcore tracks. Listen to Music Ruined Video Games.

Re:You know what I'd like to see... (1)

SCHecklerX (229973) | more than 7 years ago | (#18973143)

I call bullshit. That is unenforceable. If, for example, I had a band, and we wanted to stream OUR music and our music can RIAA possibly lay claim to any of that? It's not like I'd be 'broadcasting' in the sense of radio on the public airwaves.

Re:You know what I'd like to see... (2, Interesting)

Gonarat (177568) | more than 7 years ago | (#18975309)

This may be a dumb question, but could independent "label" sites such as CD Baby or DMusic (home of, not to be confused with Emusic) set up an easy way to allow internet radio stations to play music from their artists at a better price? It would be a pain in the ass to have to contact every band or singer that you want to play on your internet radio station, but being able to play any group from say CD Baby and pay them directly would be doable. The site could even create weekly or monthly play lists of songs that are approved if they wanted to give their Artists the option to allow or not allow their songs on internet radio at the site rate.

If this is legal and practical, then it seems like the Independent Musician could flourish while the RIAA can have all the control over their crap that they want. I would love to see the RIAA (and SoundExchange) suffer due to their greed and miserly ways, but not at the expense of the real Musicians.

How about it CD Baby, DMusic (and others)? Is this a legal option?

Here's hoping! (3, Interesting)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 7 years ago | (#18972191)

I really, really hope the Internet Radio Equality Act [] will go through ASAP for this, or it'll likely become a devastating blow to most serious Internet radio stations out there. :-/

what really does this pertain to.. (1)

deviceb (958415) | more than 7 years ago | (#18972257)

i'm not sure i fully understand.. does this only pertain to radio stations streaming, or any streaming? i do not see how this could effect say.. Shoutcast.
Yes it is very lame, and the only way to fix it is headshots of RIAA VPs..
Butt technology will just move around it.. this will not stop small time artists from broadcasting on other mediums.
The **AAz are just pushing away more consumers.. & So be it. As long as they are part of there own downward spiral this can almost be seen as a good thing.

Re:what really does this pertain to.. (1)

deviceb (958415) | more than 7 years ago | (#18972351)

butt technology.. i made myself laugh on that typo.. what the hell is butt technology?!

Re:what really does this pertain to.. (1)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | more than 7 years ago | (#18974401)

butt technology.. i made myself laugh on that typo.. what the hell is butt technology?!

Those of us in at the Tp Research Institute for Environmental Responsibility think making sure that a single square of TP is sufficient for every bathroom visit is nothing to laugh about.

Congress should smack the shit... (1)

daeg (828071) | more than 7 years ago | (#18972281)

Congress needs to smack the shit out of the Copyright Board for this stunt. As in abolish them entirely and make the payment returns retroactive. And to revoke laws that help entertainment monopolies like the RIAA. That'd be sweet justice AND help America by revoking needless laws AND give consumers more choice. The only loser would be the RIAA.

Re:Congress should smack the shit... (1)

faedle (114018) | more than 7 years ago | (#18972931)

Given past performance of the US Congress when intelligence in legislative action is required involving the entertainment industry, we can expect Congress to not only NOT intervene, if they do it will likely NOT be in the consumers' favor.

RTFA (1)

MillionthMonkey (240664) | more than 7 years ago | (#18974383)

Given past performance of the US Congress when intelligence in legislative action is required involving the entertainment industry, we can expect Congress to not only NOT intervene, if they do it will likely NOT be in the consumers' favor.

At some point this knee-jerk "they're all crooks" stuff becomes self-defeating. The worst of the crooks push this notion hard because it essentially lets them off the hook for what they've done, and it simultaneously casts doubt on any reformer who is not a crook, or is a lesser crook. In this case there is something concrete [] to point to; we're not talking about a bill that hasn't been drafted yet.

HR 2060 is, of course, the Internet Radio Equality Act. It was introduced in April by Representatives Jay Inslee (D-WA) and Don Manzullo (R-IL) and would essentially reverse the CRB's decision, returning Internet radio to its previous, percentage-based fee structure that is similar to that of satellite radio. While Internet radio stations and supporting groups didn't have much time to lobby Congress when the bill was initially introduced, the deadline extension by the CRB could give groups like SaveNetRadio just enough time to, fittingly, save 'Net radio.

If Internet radio stations are important to you, we urge you to contact your Representative and let him or her know that you support the Internet Radio Equality Act. []

Re:Congress should smack the shit... (1)

lixee (863589) | more than 7 years ago | (#18973167)

True. But in a capitalistic system that ran amock, the big bucks get to make the laws and buy justice.

mod Up (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18972357)

supplies to private our Cause. Gay

Hitler was a sensitive man. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18972391)


Re:Hitler was a sensitive man. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18972649)

I'd give anything to have some of that bratwurst.

Everything old is new again... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18972407)

Local DJ-driven radio is all but dead at this point anyway. The idea of using radio to actually engage listeners, as opposed to playing a rather fixed set list of "hits", is something most stations have given up on. Up here, the Detroit NPR affiliate, WDET, went so far as to eliminate most of its music programming (including the phenomenal Alternate Take, hosted by Liz Copeland, and some legendary jazz shows that have been staples for that community) in favor of becoming a clone of another NPR affiliate that we already receive in the same area.

Radio and the larger music labels have given up their role as taste-makers in lieu of pandering to more conservative audience taste. A local DJ can afford to challenge you. A large multi-station enterprise has little choice but to play it safe. Even the satellite radio stations have woefully "safe" playlists, for all the chatter about endless choice.

I dare say most people reading slashdot gave up on the idea of finding new music on the radio a while ago - and the rest of the public is only half a step behind. The unfortunate consequence will be the larger record labels and the multi-station radio networks are going to fight technology tooth and nail for a fight they already gave up on twenty years ago.

Payola used to be a scandal. Now it's merely a business model.

Re:Everything old is new again... (1)

smellsofbikes (890263) | more than 7 years ago | (#18974623)

Two words: college radio. They can play anything they want, and they do. That's about all I listen to anymore, including lots of online streaming college radio stations, and they've turned me onto lots, and lots, and lots of new music, precisely because they're not playing the same 45 songs all the mainstream radiostations are playing.

Cat Power, Arcade Fire, Electralane, Goldfrapp, Gotan Project, Jane Jensen, Leona Naess, Elliott Smith, Robert Miles, Tal Klein, DJ Chebi Sabah, 18th Street Lounge, Sea & Cake, Nobukazu Takihara, Arab Strap, Belle & Sebastian, Air, Mogwai, Sigur Ros, Jason Webley, Bonfire Madigan, Sleater-Kinney -- every one of those I've come across because of college or small internet radio.

The killer app for Multicast (1)

jbossvi (946552) | more than 7 years ago | (#18972565)

I think this is the killer app for finally getting your ISP to join the mbone. After all, mcasting a stream you have no way of tracking how many listeners you have. So when it comes time to pay soundexchange based on #listeners, well 0*0.0011 = $0.00 Sure it would be hard to calculate advertiser revenue, but I am sure there would be a way around it. It really is too bad that mcast is usually the last feature that your ISP will add, well next to IPv6.

Re:The killer app for Multicast (1)

netcrusher88 (743318) | more than 7 years ago | (#18974181)

Except that generally, you would use the RTP [] protocol to stream, not just raw UDP. (Why? Experiment on an iffy connection using unicast VLC streams and you'll find out.) An integral part of the RTP standard is RTCP which provides a way for listeners to send control signals back to the sender and vice versa - primarily simple reports that they're listening and out-of-band stream information (song title, for example) respectively, although the spec provides for other application-specific uses. In fact, Section 6.2.1 of the RTP spec in RFC 3550 states that stream senders should keep track of listeners using RTCP.

Don't get me wrong though, multicast will be a huge boon to internet radio when and if it becomes commonplace. Think of the bandwidth savings by sending only a few streams of packets instead of hundreds.

It's not just royalties. (2, Informative)

fuego451 (958976) | more than 7 years ago | (#18972719)

Pandora [] is being forced to block non-US listeners.

From the article:, a popular streaming music recommendation service (which is already facing some challenges due to the new webcaster rates) is being forced to block all non-US users of its service. This is because the recording industry wants Pandora to sign separate licensing deals in every country where it has listeners -- a nearly impossible task.

You have to wonder how much longer the RIAA will get away with its ignorance and greed.

Re:It's not just royalties. (1)

TheThiefMaster (992038) | more than 7 years ago | (#18972929)

I seem to remember pandora requires a zip code to verify you're American. If you live abroad just put in 000000 and you're set! At least you could, I don't know if they still accept it, but they did when I signed up.

somaFM (1)

katemc (1097071) | more than 7 years ago | (#18972855)

If this legislation passes then small independent internet radio stations will be unable to pay the fees and therefor immediately go off the air. This is a case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing. I can say for a fact that 80% of the new music I have bought in the last 12 months has been because I heard it on an internet radio station. For more information and some great music check out [] They have helpful information on how to contact your local Congressman and tell him/her that you do not support this act.

60 Days? (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 7 years ago | (#18973633)

Oh, thank you o merciful masters. Promise you won't kill me while I'm picking up the crumbs? We are a kinky bunch when it comes to these people. We like to be handcuffed to the bedposts while they do their dirty business. Oooo baby...Here's my money...punish me more...

"Hit me with your rhythm stick
Hit me, hit me
Je t'adore, ich leibe dich
Hit me, hit me, hit me
Hit me with your rhythm stick
Hit me slowly, hit me quick
Hit me, hit me, hit me

Just in passing (1)

BuffaloBill (246747) | more than 7 years ago | (#18977925)

Ok, I wrote my Congressional reps outlining my unhappy take on this piracy and I actually received replies from Mrs. Clinton and Rep. Brian Higgins. The staff cranking out the boilerplate seems to 'get it' and it appears they are being flooded with complaints. Higgins reply contains the following:

  "Public and web-based radio stations play an important role in our culture. These stations offer unique, often one-of-a-kind programming free of commercial concerns, and are an important means of public expression. Please know that I will continue to support these stations in the future."

We will see if the commercial pirates prevail but in the meantime here on the North Coast we fortunately have socialized radio from our Canadian cousins. Thank god. There are two popular genres in Canadian music, country and western but the state radio system plays a wide range of material some of it mandated by the Canadian content law. More than that they have real radio as we used to know it. Popular discussion programs hosted by savvy and civil broadcasters, cool music of all varieties (Disc Drive with Jurgen Goth comes to mind,) Satire like the Americans couldn't take, (This Hour has Twenty Minutes, Air Farce, etc). Were to you think Blitzer, Russert and Fresh Air got their early inspiration? Just take a look at the number of Canadians that have succeeded in American broadcasting. Find the CBC on the web from where you are. RIAA ain't gonna shut them down anytime soon.

Nobody listens to local am/fm after about twenty minutes around here.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?