Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The SoundExchange Billion Dollar Administrative Fee

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the crushing-greed dept.

Music 127

palewook writes "On June 7th, Yahoo, RealNetworks, Pandora, and Live365 sent letters to US lawmakers emphasizing they owe SoundExchange 'administrative fees' of more than $1 billion dollars a year. These fees would be paid for the 'privilege' of collecting the increased CRB royalties effective July 15th, unless the Internet Radio Equality Act passes Congress. SoundExchange, the non-profit music industry entity, admits the levied charge of $500 per 'channel' is supposed to only cover their administrative costs. Last year, SoundExchange collected a total of $20 million dollars from the Internet radio industry. Under the new 'administrative fee' RealNetworks, which hosted 400,000 unique subscribed channels in 2006, would owe an annual administrative charge of 200 million dollars in addition to the retroactive 2006 rate hike per song played."

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

How dare they. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19452039)

How dare they.

Re:How dare they. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19452097)

Wow like I care about this. Maybe the only thing I care less about is Iraq.

Re:How dare they. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19454825)

Don't forget to pay your $1,000,000,000 licensing fee you cock-smoking tea baggers.

dollars $ dollars (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19452265)

$1 billion dollars
Pet peeve of mine. How do you pronounce "$1 billion"? "One billion dollars" How do you pronounce "$1 billion dollars"? "One billion dollars dollars". If you're going to spell out "dollars" you don't need the dollars sign and, in fact, you should spell out the word as well. Such as "one billion dollars".
 

Re:dollars $ dollars (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19452959)

I gots to try me one of them new fangled automated teller atm machines but they haven't sent my required personal indentification pin number yet.

Re:dollars $ dollars (5, Funny)

2.7182 (819680) | more than 7 years ago | (#19453475)

I was walking over to an ATM machine the other day, when I realized that many other people have the same PIN number as me. I thought "they should have a personalized PIN number." Also, my bank still uses those old CRT tubes and they are hard to read, so they really need to upgrade the whole thing. Anyway I went into the bank to sit and talk to a representative about this, and I was reading a DC comic, and the light next to me was flickering. Damn that AC current! I took out my laptop, since I wanted to learn more about CSS style sheets. (Are they under the GPL license btw ?) After about 5 minutes of reading I had a headache - I felt like an ICBM missile had hit my head! Or maybe it was from my LCD display. What I need is a vacation I thought - so I went home and started to pack my SCUBA gear.

Re:dollars $ dollars (2, Informative)

cpt kangarooski (3773) | more than 7 years ago | (#19453535)

You were doing pretty good until the end there. You should've said you were packing your SCUBA apparatus.

Re:dollars $ dollars (1)

coleblak (863392) | more than 7 years ago | (#19453687)

The dollar sign is used to signify US Dollars. So, it's pronounced 'One Billion US Dollars.'

Re:dollars $ dollars (1)

kakofb (725561) | more than 7 years ago | (#19454223)

No. $ is used for "dollars" no matter which dollars it means.

Re:dollars $ dollars (1)

memojuez (910304) | more than 7 years ago | (#19454457)

USD 1 Billion is used to signify One Billion United States Dollars $1,000,000,000 or $1 Billion is simply one billion dollars and could just as easily be Canadian Dollars as well as US Dollars.

Re:dollars $ dollars (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19455299)

Close, but the sign for US dollars is actually the "$" with 2 lines through it. "$" is unspecified dollars (but usually calculable from othe context).

My heroes (4, Funny)

Timesprout (579035) | more than 7 years ago | (#19452073)

They beat me to it. It's always been my dream to set up a non-profit (for everyone else except me of couse) that rakes in money by charging other companies fee levels that I just make up.

Re:My heroes (-1, Flamebait)

Basehart (633304) | more than 7 years ago | (#19452101)

Anything that screws RealNetworks' Rhapsody into the ground where it belongs is fine by me.

Re:My heroes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19452133)

I have to disagree. I have Sonos at home and Rhapsody + Sonos is pure bliss. Listening to it right now. It will truly be a sad day for me if, due to this fee, they have a rate hike or even have to shut down.

Re:My heroes (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19452545)

Of course it's all administrative costs.
If it would be 99% administrative costs then we have to share a very small part of the remaining 1% with artist! That would make no sense at all.

Re:My heroes (4, Funny)

Bodero (136806) | more than 7 years ago | (#19452715)

It's always been my dream to set up a non-profit (for everyone else except me of couse) that rakes in money by charging other companies fee levels that I just make up.


There's always money to be made in the carbon offset business...

To put this in perspective (4, Informative)

Solandri (704621) | more than 7 years ago | (#19453613)

To put the $1 billion in perspective, the net revenue for all music sales in 2006 [riaa.com] in the U.S. reported by the RIAA was only $11.5 billion. That's revenue, not profit.

Re:My heroes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19454149)

Been done [tux500.com] .

If you didn't vote Libertarian YOU ASKED FORTHIS (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19452091)

This is yet another way for the government to take money from the citizens at gunpoint to give to others. Anyone who voted Republicrat or Democan shut up and go sit on the sidelines. The Republicrats and Democans enacted this and you voted for them asking for an intrusive and activist government. You have no room to complain now. You asked for this.

__________________________________________________ ____
A vote against a Libertarian candidate is
a vote to abolish the Constitution itself.

Re:If you didn't vote Libertarian YOU ASKED FORTHI (4, Funny)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 7 years ago | (#19452103)

With advocates like this, it's hard to believe people have difficulty taking Libertarians seriously.

If you didn't vote Democrat YOU ASKED FOR THIS (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19452475)

The Iraq war and Nazi Bush and PNAC Cheney and Operation Northwoods and Global Warming and Guantanamo Bay will be responsible for AMERICA'S DEMISE!!!

You must vote Democrat or else the world will be destroyed!!!!

VOTE DEMOCRAT

Re:If you didn't vote Democrat YOU ASKED FOR THIS (1)

Nullav (1053766) | more than 7 years ago | (#19452629)

...Am I the only one who thinks this thread reads like the Timecube site?

Re:If you didn't vote Libertarian YOU ASKED FORTHI (-1, Offtopic)

KKlaus (1012919) | more than 7 years ago | (#19452825)

You know on libertarianism, and I was thinking about this because I consider voting for Ron Paul, you know what holds them back? Complete lack of foreign policy. I don't want to waste too much time on this, because it's off topic, but that's I think what stops libertarian candidates from being legitimate candidates (particularly in the case of the presidency). What's Doc Paul's answer for Iran? N.K.? Is it non-interventionism? Because I think we can do better than that.

Anyway, if you feel like that sort of rings true to you, and want to read the same opinion by someone with a name, feel free to go to reason.com (which is the site of the libertarian magazine Reason) and read the recent interview with Christopher Hitchens, who happens to say much the same thing.

Cheers.

Re:If you didn't vote Libertarian YOU ASKED FORTHI (0, Offtopic)

KKlaus (1012919) | more than 7 years ago | (#19454555)

Whoever modded me offtopic is a retard. The post I replied to was on the subject of libertarianism, was it not? Surely I didn't overstep the bounds of the discussion... but thanks anyway whoever thought they were making slashdot a better place by doing that.

Re:If you didn't vote Libertarian YOU ASKED FORTHI (1)

Emperor Cezar (106515) | more than 7 years ago | (#19453611)

Don't feed the trolls.

Re:If you didn't vote Libertarian YOU ASKED FORTHI (1)

darkpixel2k (623900) | more than 7 years ago | (#19455411)

That's the dumbest argument ever. It's pretty easy to stand back and say "my guy would have been better". He has never been in office, so we can't know how good/bad he'll do.

I can just as easily say "Thank God we didn't vote Libertarian. Things would have been so much worse."

Meh. I hate politics.

Re:If you didn't vote Libertarian YOU ASKED FORTHI (0, Flamebait)

Planesdragon (210349) | more than 7 years ago | (#19452165)

The Republicrats and Democans enacted this and you voted for them asking for an intrusive and activist government. You have no room to complain now. You asked for this.
By that logic, the libertarians are asking for broken roads, an end to education standards, and the conquest of the United States by Mexico.

Given the choice between total obliteration of our society and the fiscal raping of a few for-profit companies, I think we'll screw Real.

Re:If you didn't vote Libertarian YOU ASKED FORTHI (3, Funny)

bigdavesmith (928732) | more than 7 years ago | (#19452557)

...and the conquest of the United States by Mexico.
If they can get those Cheezy Gordita Crunches down to 99 cents, count me in.

Re:If you didn't vote Libertarian YOU ASKED FORTHI (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 7 years ago | (#19453201)

Given the choice between total obliteration of our society and the fiscal raping of a few for-profit companies, I think we'll screw Real.

I guess the collateral damage makes it all worth it? That's a little like killing a guy by blowing up the 747 he's riding in with 350 other people. It's much better to eliminate the laws that protect the cartels that are nearing the end of the road. But then, who's going to kill that golden goose? ...So much money being thrown around and so little benefit...For most of us, it's like seeing it go straight into the incinerator.

Re:If you didn't vote Libertarian YOU ASKED FORTHI (0, Flamebait)

WingedEarth (958581) | more than 7 years ago | (#19454469)

The Libertarian Party is asking for conquest by Mexico, but Ron Paul isn't. He's against open borders, and that makes sense. The point of libertarianism is to protect the liberty of the American people. You can't do that by allowing foreign invasion.

Re:If you didn't vote Libertarian YOU ASKED FORTHI (1)

kiracatgirl (791797) | more than 7 years ago | (#19452167)

That's funny. You know that SoundExchange is the one taking the money here, and that they're not a part of the government, right? Right?

Besides, the whole point of the idea of "democracy" is to let people complain about the government. We can complain all we want. Nyaaaah.

Re:If you didn't vote Libertarian YOU ASKED FORTHI (1)

Ghubi (1102775) | more than 7 years ago | (#19452631)

Close, the point of democracy is that people can CHANGE the government when they don't like it. Change means more than just complaining about something.

If you did vote Libertarian YOU'RE A FUCKTARD (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19452203)

I was wrong, a vote against a Libertarian Candidate is a vote towards the right direction. We Libertarians are nothing more than a bunch of fucktards who should go slit our fucking wrists.
-Bob Robertson

Re:If you didn't vote Libertarian YOU ASKED FORTHI (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19452255)

A vote against a Libertarian candidate is
a vote to abolish the Constitution itself.


What if I voted for a Constitution party candidate? Was that a vote against the Constitution as well?

in fair comparison.... (2, Interesting)

3seas (184403) | more than 7 years ago | (#19452105)

.. I'd like to see the math and results of income to such organizations and businesses ... but prior to internet.

In other words, who gets what without the internet?

Re:in fair comparison.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19452527)

In other words, who gets what without the internet?
Well, I may not be a rocket surgeon, but I'd say without the internet you wouldn't get modded up.
 

The Net Is Almost Too Disgusting Any More (1)

NeverVotedBush (1041088) | more than 7 years ago | (#19452111)

As necessary as it seems, with all the snooping, the phishing, the scams, the logging, the data mining, the patent fights, and all the other crap that's going on these days, it is getting where the Internet is more necessary evil - with emphasis on the evil.

I also agree with net neutrality. That's the problem. I just hate it that anyone thinks they have to resort what is tantamount to extortion. Or that anyone has to resort to extortion.

People predicted long ago that once money got involved with the net, it would radically change. They were right. All of computing has.

Re:The Net Is Almost Too Disgusting Any More (1)

_Sprocket_ (42527) | more than 7 years ago | (#19452529)

People predicted long ago that once money got involved with the net, it would radically change. They were right. All of computing has.


You act like the statement was prophetic and not just stating the obvious. Money is a common denominator for all interests. As such, wherever money is involved, it will bring in all manner of individuals... including those with very predatory motives.

The Internet and computing in general have expanded to a point that it attracts a vast number of individuals. Some are decent folks. Some are not. And as such, these things are becoming tools to do good things as well as tools to do bad things. Forgive me if I don't feign shock.

Yeah - there's a lot of bad out there. I'm especially aware of it because that's what I do. But I'm also keenly aware of all the good involved too. I'll take the trade-off. I just wish the folks engineering the devices and mechanisms we use would be a little more keenly aware of that trade-off as well.

Re:The Net Is Almost Too Disgusting Any More (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19453949)

Yeah - there's a lot of bad out there. I'm especially aware of it because that's what I do.

Well then do us all a favor and stop doing it.

I'm so conflicted (0)

Evets (629327) | more than 7 years ago | (#19452137)

Which side am I supposed to choose here? The recording industry, or Real Networks. I hate them both.

Wait a second here... that means whoever ends up getting screwed, I win. Rock On.

Re:I'm so conflicted (5, Insightful)

LighterShadeOfBlack (1011407) | more than 7 years ago | (#19452363)

Wait a second here... that means whoever ends up getting screwed, I win. Rock On.
No I think a more realistic way of looking at it is "Whoever wins... we lose". This situation is a lot like the AvP movie in other ways too: I can't bear to watch this either.

Re:I'm so conflicted (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19452391)

Which side am I supposed to choose here? The recording industry, or Real Networks. I hate them both.

This is actually pretty easy - RealPlayer for Linux is quite decent, and we all know what *AA thinks of Linux!

Re:I'm so conflicted (1)

jonbryce (703250) | more than 7 years ago | (#19452397)

Real Networks. There are other internet radio services around which are equally affected by this.

Re:I'm so conflicted (1)

Ash Vince (602485) | more than 7 years ago | (#19453753)

Which side am I supposed to choose here? The recording industry, or Real Networks. I hate them both.

Why?

The answer to the recording industry in can guess if you actually mean RIAA. But they are not the whole industry, they only represent the biggest companies.

But why hate Real Networks? They have indulged in some dubious business practices in the past I thought they stopped those when they jumped on the Open Source bandwagon.

Re:I'm so conflicted (1)

Constantine XVI (880691) | more than 7 years ago | (#19453939)

Well, let's see here:
The recording industry wants gobs of money, is inherently evil, and hates the internet.
RealNetworks wants gobs of money, is somewhat evil, but loves the internet, puts out a very good mostly OSS Linux media player, and is just as screwed as SomaFM and (insert station here) if this goes through.

Hmmm....

Re:I'm so conflicted (1)

Evets (629327) | more than 7 years ago | (#19454055)

Are you guys actually saying the RealPlayer for linux is less crappy than it's window's counterpart? As in - not constantly putting ads in front of you, not constantly trying to sell you something?

(this is an sarcasm free question)

Re:I'm so conflicted (1)

Constantine XVI (880691) | more than 7 years ago | (#19454125)

Yes, it is. It's open-source (Helix player), very streamlined, and I'd go as far out as to say it's better than Totem, GNOME's built-in player (which personally doesnt mean much). It is also 100% ad free, and I think the non-Open version even handles DRM'd RealMedia (which is sometimes a necessary evil). If only they'd use the profits from the ads in the Windows version to put a CSS decoder and DVD support in the Linux version so we can finally have legit (in US) DVDs in Linux. I'd even pay for that.

I hear the Mac version's pretty decent too.

Just like a cancer (4, Insightful)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 7 years ago | (#19452141)

The RIAA will kill off internet radio, then another piece of the 'music pie', and then another and another until it has nothing left.

Re:Just like a cancer (2, Insightful)

KKlaus (1012919) | more than 7 years ago | (#19452797)

Except... selling albums. Or are you implying that people will stop listening to music? Destroying markets that aren't profitable for you or that you don't control is evil, and our freaking congress of all groups shouldn't be the ones giving these guys cart blanche to do so, but it isn't exactly bad business.

Re:Just like a cancer (4, Insightful)

GreatBunzinni (642500) | more than 7 years ago | (#19452833)

Correction: the RIAA will kill off internet radio FROM THE US of A. The RIAA is an american business association which lobbies the US government institutions to implement policies in order for their associates' business to thrive. It's influence outside of the US isn't felt, specially in countries where fair use rights are acknowledged and respected. So the only thing that the RIAA's antics will produce is effectively strangling the US market.

Re:Just like a cancer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19454069)

It's influence outside of the US isn't felt,
Um...you know those "Free Trade" Agreements? Well you should read them and see what we are trading. To save you some time: Jobs for IP laws. Also see Allofmp3.com [wikipedia.org] ... I will give you this though, many of those countries(China) don't actually do anything to enforce [doc.gov] those laws. Look who's the dope.

Re:Just like a cancer (1)

mmarlett (520340) | more than 7 years ago | (#19452895)

If it kills (U.S.) Internet radio then we can all laugh, say "I told you so," then pressure our government officials to prosecute the RIAA. And that will probably be the end of the RIAA as we know it. Then, when it's gone, (U.S.) Internet radio can come back. And almost everything about the music industry will change.

Re:Just like a cancer (1)

innerweb (721995) | more than 7 years ago | (#19453391)

For years, local performances have all but dried up due to unfair competition from big labels. I see them coming back now as people are more willing to part with money at these venues. Let the RIAA kill off the rest of the music world. What will be left is truly the best part anyway. What bothers me about this deal, is breadth and the reach of the internet radio fees. What about a station that plays nothing but non-label music with knowledge and permission from the artist(s)? Are these stations then taxed the same way even though they are playing music that is not part of the umbrella?

-InnerWeb

Re:Just like a cancer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19454131)

Ohh the same companies will bribe the bureaucrats in Brussels as well. All in the name of harmonization of course. Then The US and the EU will force the other countries via the good old WTO.

Re:Just like a cancer (1)

Pikoro (844299) | more than 7 years ago | (#19454817)

"Are these stations then taxed the same way even though they are playing music that is not part of the umbrella?"

Yes. It is exactly like that. The RIAA will collect royalties for indie music as well. They keep those royalties until such time as the indie artist joins the RIAA. Granted, those pre-collected royalties would probablly not even cover the sign-up fee to join the RIAA.

Re:Just like a cancer (1)

Wayne247 (183933) | more than 7 years ago | (#19454975)

You just made a very minor error in your statement.

The internet will kill the RIAA.

Now that I have this post in my slashdot history, I can now count the time until I am eventually right. RIAA can absolutely not win, not now, not never. No amounts of lobbying, government attempts at control and regulation will ever stop people from doing what they want to do: listen to broadcasts.

Ha Ha Ha Ha Haaa! (2, Funny)

throatmonster (147275) | more than 7 years ago | (#19452147)

...the sound of someone laughing - all the way to the bank.

What's not mentioned... (4, Insightful)

creimer (824291) | more than 7 years ago | (#19452195)

Is that the politicians want their share of shakedown. Has anyone noticed that Microsoft had zero lobbyists in Washington before the anti-trust lawsuit, and they now spend $200 million a year on Washington lobbyists? Internet radio will have to pay the piper.

Re:What's not mentioned... (4, Insightful)

_Sprocket_ (42527) | more than 7 years ago | (#19452389)

Has anyone noticed that Microsoft had zero lobbyists in Washington before the anti-trust lawsuit, and they now spend $200 million a year on Washington lobbyists?


This is always touted as one of Microsoft's lessons learned - be involved in the government. Part of this is probably due to a belief that the anti-trust lawsuit was a vendetta brought on by more politically savvy sour-grapes competitors. I don't agree. But I do think it was only a matter of time for Microsoft to get involved anyway.

Microsoft is a large entity with a vested interest in how the market behaves. And the market itself is large enough to touch on almost every aspect of our lives (its what "we" always knew would happen back in the '80s with our little hobbiest microcomputers waxing poetic about the future). With the market so important, Congress is going to get involved eventually... mainly at the prodding of lobbyists from other industries touched by the expanding IT market. It makes sense that Microsoft would decide to have its views put in the ears of Congress as well.

Does this mean Congress-critters are demanding payouts? I'm not so sure its exactly that (although I would expect it is accurate in some cases). But I am positive you're not going to be well represented if those that would represent your view are unaware of what that view is. Or even worse... people with an opposing view have managed to convince your favorite Congress-critter that reality lines up with their viewpoint (queue this post's theme song [youtube.com] ).

Re:What's not mentioned... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19454675)

"They now spend $200 million a year on Washington lobbyists."

About half a million per year to 400 people. Yes, sounds about right.

What would you do with 500 000 dollars per year? So called "no strings attached"-money, of course.

I wonder what real will do.... (5, Funny)

d3ity (800597) | more than 7 years ago | (#19452213)

I wonder what Real Networks will do if they can't come up with the $200 million dollars they apparently owe... They'll probably stall for time... Buffering...

Only Americans will be silenced (5, Insightful)

Cafe Alpha (891670) | more than 7 years ago | (#19452249)

Cheer up, the rest of the world will still have freedom on the internet. It's just us Americans who will be regulated out of having any expression.

We'll still be able to listen to Russian stations.

Where's you're "In Soviet Russia..." joke now, bitches?

Re:Only Americans will be silenced (1)

coldcell (714061) | more than 7 years ago | (#19452269)

...ok:

In Soviet Russian, the radio listens to YOU!

Re:Only Americans will be silenced (5, Funny)

cabinetsoft (923481) | more than 7 years ago | (#19452405)

In Soviet Russian, the radio listens to YOU!
That ain't funny, that's informative! The radio, the ashtray, the walls...

Re:Only Americans will be silenced (3, Insightful)

Mistlefoot (636417) | more than 7 years ago | (#19452567)

As opposed to the US where it's just the Phone, the TV and your computer.

Privacy in the US isn't what it was anymore.

Re:Only Americans will be silenced (1)

Original Replica (908688) | more than 7 years ago | (#19452419)

at least some one is listening us. 'cause the recording industry and the politicians sure as hell aren't.

Re:Only Americans will be silenced (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19452523)

We'll still be able to listen to Russian stations.

Only until your government bullies Russia into passing similar laws.

Re:Only Americans will be silenced (1)

_Sprocket_ (42527) | more than 7 years ago | (#19452541)

Where's you're "In Soviet Russia..." joke now, bitches?


Sounds to me like you're wanting "In Post-Soviet Russia..." jokes. We don't do those. They're not funny.

Re:Only Americans will be silenced (1)

SeaFox (739806) | more than 7 years ago | (#19453977)

Where's you're "In Soviet Russia..." joke now, bitches?

I Soviet Russia, the internet radio plays swan song for American internet radio.

Resposible Government, the anti-drug (4, Funny)

Smight (1099639) | more than 7 years ago | (#19452251)

Government to SoundExchange: What is this?! Where did you learn to charge these outrageous administrative fees? Was it from all those lawyers I see you hanging around with?

SoundExchange to Government: I learned it from YOU OK! I learned it by watching you *sob*

SoundExchange runs out of the room while Government stares into the distance meaningfully.

no love lost with Real Networks, BUT - (4, Insightful)

Ralph Spoilsport (673134) | more than 7 years ago | (#19452317)

the RIAA is simply evil beyond all bounds of reason. I'm surprised that some nutjob asshat hasn't yet barged into their offices and raked 'em all down with machine gun fire. Everything they are doing is so bad and so dangerous to the legacy of the late 20th and early 21st century, it really is criminal.

While I don't advocate someone blowing their office to flinders with a bomb or some other evil terroristic act, I am surprised that it hasn't happened yet (one would think that with all the loosely bound people in the USA, one of them would have freaked out by now and targeted them...)

What I DO advocate is that the RIAA and the MPAA and their associated organisations be banned and eliminated and the music and film artists and industry re-organise itself along more open and egalitarian lines.

RS

Re:no love lost with Real Networks, BUT - (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 7 years ago | (#19452421)

If you want to watch the RIAA start having real problems, you simply have to publicly and repeatedly associate them with abortion, or cute, furry animals, or any hot-button issue that has a militant wing. Maybe a bunch of wackos in pirate outfits would storm the place. Serve them right.

Re:no love lost with Real Networks, BUT - (2, Funny)

Jerry Smith (806480) | more than 7 years ago | (#19452763)

...Maybe a bunch of wackos in pirate outfits would storm the place. Serve them right.

{cough}http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0085959/ [imdb.com] {/cough }

I think you spend WAYYYYY too much time on /. (1)

briancnorton (586947) | more than 7 years ago | (#19452653)

I'm surprised that some nutjob asshat hasn't yet barged into their offices and raked 'em all down with machine gun fire

Perhaps you have lost your perspective from too much time on the net. When all is said and done it's just music were talking about. People go nuts for lesser reasons, sure, but I question if the issues surrounding the RIAA has had anywhere NEAR the exposure it would take to have the statistical nutjob appear. Ask 100 people about the RIAA and 95 will have no idea what you're going on about, while the other 5 think it some kind of STD. The strong moral issues that create nutjobs don't exist with net radio. (unlike abortion, joblesness, etc)

Re:I think you spend WAYYYYY too much time on /. (1)

Anonymous McCartneyf (1037584) | more than 7 years ago | (#19452815)

Oh, those strong moral issues exist. It's just that those who know and are affected most crazily usually just post here, or are trying to making a living signed to one of the labels creating these problems.
Now, if SoundExchange continues on its quest for a billion dollars in administrative fees, some of the moral issues will become known. Thousands of people would be annoyed or distressed if Yahoo! Launchcast (all zillion stations--Yahoo! personalizes them for their users) was taken off the air. Many of them will be people with just enough computer savvy to work Yahoo!--but they would be aware, and they would be irate, and they might even know who to blame. Yahoo! would be quick to assure its users that removing Launchcast was against its will.
Repeat with variations for the other large internet-radio conglomerates.

Re:no love lost with Real Networks, BUT - (1)

BeerCat (685972) | more than 7 years ago | (#19453491)

I'm surprised that some nutjob asshat hasn't yet barged into their offices and raked 'em all down with machine gun fire.


Probably because even the nutjob asshats reckon it's not worth the cost of the bullets

Re:no love lost with Real Networks, BUT - (4, Funny)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 7 years ago | (#19454407)

I'm surprised that some nutjob asshat hasn't yet barged into their offices and raked 'em all down with machine gun fire.

You're going to jail for this!

While I don't advocate someone blowing their office to flinders

Fine, you're off the hook...

with a bomb or some other evil terroristic act

That's is: jail time!

I am surprised that it hasn't happened yet

Oh ok, you're a fine fella.

(one would think that with all the loosely bound people in the USA, one of them would have freaked out by now and targeted them...)

Effin terrorist! JAIL!

What I DO advocate is that the RIAA and the MPAA and their associated organisations be banned

Oh, banned. That's cool I guess. ... and eliminated

Screw it, I'm calling the FBI on ya!!

Re:no love lost with Real Networks, BUT - (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 7 years ago | (#19455307)

The ratio of nut jobs in the US currently willing to go serial killer on something vs other people seems to be a lot less than 1:10,000,000. It might seem like there are a lot of violent nut jobs, but to suggest that is fallacy of misleading vividness, for one thing. One nut job killing two or three dozen can be the subject of news for several weeks, enough of them and it seems like it happens everywhere and all the time. In reality, it's a very rare and unpredictable event such that wholesale shifts in society would generally be a needless and overbearing knee-jerk reaction.

Misread TFS. (1)

sconeu (64226) | more than 7 years ago | (#19452639)

At first I thought SoundExchange was billing the CongressCritters for [pinky-to-mouth]ONE BILLION DOLLARS[/pinky-to-mouth].

Then I reread it, and realized Real, Yahoo! and the others were pointing out the consequences of the CRB decision.

Non-profit spending accounts ? (3, Interesting)

billcopc (196330) | more than 7 years ago | (#19452657)

IANAA (i am not an American), but if SoundExchange is supposed to be a non-profit, doesn't that mean they have to actually spend a significant portion of those funds on whatever issue they're supporting ?

I know here in Canada, charitable organizations have to spend something like 80% of their income on the cause, with the remaining 20% expected to cover administrative expenses and salaries. I could be wrong on the numbers but it's in the ballpark. There is also a limit on how long an org can sit on their money, so for example they couldn't raise 1 million in a year and siphon off the 20% over five years. If that weren't the case, everyone and their mother would have their own non-profit company as a tax-free retirement account.

And don't start telling me they're actually paying the artists. They're paying the publishers, the agents, the producers, the "everything up to 11" pop mix "engineer", and of course the lobbyists. Besides, SoundExchange's information is such a market driver that it's in the industry's best interests to have doped and skimmed numbers depending on who they're pushing that particular week.

Re:Non-profit spending accounts ? (1)

admiralfurburger (76098) | more than 7 years ago | (#19453819)

You've confused "nonprofit" with "charitable organization"

From the wiki for nonprofit:
Most experts consider the legal and ethical restrictions on the distribution of profits to owners or shareholders as what fundamentally distinguishes nonprofits from commercial enterprises.

Re:Non-profit spending accounts ? (1)

Intheway (1089499) | more than 7 years ago | (#19454175)

The IRS does keep an eye on non-profits who must file informational returns. While they keep the criteria secret, a general rule of thumb is that expenses in excess of 20% of annual revenue raises a red flag to the auditors. There are exceptions; small non-profits can have higher expenses, and at start up, large ones are generally given some time to bring expenses down to an allowable level. In a press interview two years ago, John Simson said that SoundExchange operational expenses were still above 25% of revenue, but because they don't have to show their books to anyone, no one knows if he was telling the truth or not.

The real point here is that SoundExchange doesn't want the $500 for each channel. They want those webcasters to go away. SoundExchange is probably very happy with being able to absorb money from the "unfound artist" accounts when they need additional operational money (someone has to pay for the top shelf liquor at the Christmas party), so having to spend the extra billion would mean more work for them. If SoundExchange can run off Live365, Pandora, Yahoo and Real, tbeir job gets that much easier, and they don't need the per-channel fees.

It's sad... (1)

Ghubi (1102775) | more than 7 years ago | (#19452705)

What ever happened to America being the land of freedom and opportunity?

Re:It's sad... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19452761)

It got lost when greed and power came around the corner.

Re:It's sad... (2, Interesting)

jstomel (985001) | more than 7 years ago | (#19453881)

What ever happened to America being the land of freedom and opportunity?
The last hundred years.

Re:It's sad... (1)

dryeo (100693) | more than 7 years ago | (#19455625)

About 500 years ago white people showed up and it became the land of slavery, genocide and marketing. You have to admit those marketers were good. Know any other countries who had genocide as an official policy who convinced most everyone they were the land of freedom and opportunity?

I billon dollars fee to collect how much...? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19452769)

Can someone tell me, that how much money is being collected and sent to the artists for this 1 billion dollars administration fee?

Re:I billon dollars fee to collect how much...? (1)

Intheway (1089499) | more than 7 years ago | (#19454663)

SoundExchange doesn't have to show anyone their books, but estimates of annual royalty payouts run between $20 and $35 million, depending on what number favors SoundExchange on any given day. In other words, it looks as if SoundExchange needs to spend $35 to deliver $1 in benefits. Ain't monopoly a wonderful thing?

Re:I billon dollars fee to collect how much...? (1)

Intheway (1089499) | more than 7 years ago | (#19454707)

And remember that the $20-35 million is split 50/50 between artists and copyright holders (read labels). SoundExchange, however, sets aside a full 40% of the royalty pool for claims by artists they can't find. This is the money they get to keep after three years of not finding artists. The RIAA labels get about 70% of the label share, which works out to something between $7 and $12.5 million split four ways. The A2IM, the indy label RIAA, says it gets the other 30%.

I'm confused. (1)

wfs2mail.com (794623) | more than 7 years ago | (#19452773)

Are they a non-profit organization? Who gets the money? What are their admin costs?

The Admin fee will pay for more lawsuits (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19453713)

The Admin fee will pay for more lawsuits, SoundExchange will start going after anyone who has music on their website, e.g. all those podcasters out there, mp3 blogs, etc. They'll start suing them as well as spend tons more money lobbying for their own self-interest.

It's only fair ... (1)

constantnormal (512494) | more than 7 years ago | (#19452849)

Apparently, the way this works is that each session between a client (that would be me and thee) and a server counts as a "channel".

If this actually becomes law, I think the proper thing to do is to sue on behalf of the "not for profit" SoundExchange (a.k.a. a front man for the RIAA) all the radio stations, counting each listener as an individual channel.

Then sue all the record stores, counting each customer as a unique individual channel. At the end of all this, no industry recorded music would be sold, and the recording industry would collapse.

It's only fair that they get what they asked for.

Re:It's only fair ... (1)

OrangeSpyderMan (589635) | more than 7 years ago | (#19453149)

Then sue all the record stores, counting each customer as a unique individual channel. At the end of all this, no industry recorded music would be sold, and the recording industry would collapse.

As mentioned previously - this is ONLY the U.S. of A ;) . The world's recording industry wouldn't collapse, and I'm tempted to say let 'em do it. Cripple themselves. Go on, guys, kill your own industry. I won't cry.

Creative Non-Violent Protest: Don't Effing Pay (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19452857)

I think that every company that the CRB says owes them money should simply refuse to pay and force the CRB and Sound Exchange to thereby spend every penny in their coffers litigating against these companies indefinitely. It will not strengthen the resolve of the CRB or SoundExchange to behave in a manner consistent with their decisions, but will force Congress to mediate an action that will be amicable for everyone. Worst case scenario for SoundExchange and CRB: nobody pays them a single penny and they run out of money paying lawyers to sue everyone who eventually files bankruptcy protection to prevent having to pay them. Best hack ever.

tubgirL (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19453085)

lubrication. You troubles of those THE GAY NIGGERS haaPiness Another

Is this a prime example of a GetRich Quick scam? (2)

MadJo (674225) | more than 7 years ago | (#19453645)

Is this a prime example of a GetRich Quick scam?
It really looks that way.

A Racket for sure (1)

DaveWick79 (939388) | more than 7 years ago | (#19453827)

If nothing else, the revelation of these so called "administrative fees" proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that SoundExchange is not in place to benefit the artists. They are attempting to line their pockets as thick as they can now that they have been given the opportunity. They are trying to get paid for song plays for artists that they do not represent and pay no money out to.

What prevents me from creating my own organization and start billing radio stations and internet sites for song plays, because I represent at least one artist (myself)? And if there is a legal reason for me not to be able to do this, how the heck did these theiving creeps at SE get the gig?

just use internet media outside USA? (2, Insightful)

Octavio Paz (1113545) | more than 7 years ago | (#19453909)

As the USA and RIAA, etc continue to crush the USA, isn't the most direct remedy
for the American media consumer to listen to internet radio from provider outside the USA?

The US GOV and commercial media can certainly herd the mass, though for the computer literate
it is possible that they go outside USA while sitting at home in USA?

Either way, the USA is turning into terrible place with much economic stagnation, not to
mention that general intellect is simply absent there.

The Fee is Per Channel... (5, Insightful)

Benedick (737361) | more than 7 years ago | (#19455225)

The fact that the fee is per channel gets me thinking. At Pandora, I have two defined channels. Those channels introduce me to new music, new artists, perhaps artists not represented by the RIAA. Think about that.

If Pandora has ten thousand listeners like me, that's twenty thousand stations times $500 per station is ten million dollars. That's probably enough to kill Pandora and any other customizable channel internet radio site. But if the internet radio site only had say five channels, that's only $2,500, easily affordable by a commercial site.

My conclusion from this little exercise is that the RIAA is out to kill customizable channels. They don't want you to learn about music on your own. They only want you to listen to whatever the latest pop sensation is. They want to eliminate choice and the extra expense of having so many artists. If they can make it so all you ever hear is the generic artist of the moment, that's all you'll know and all you'll buy.

This is all about control. RIAA wants to make sure they control not just your access to their artists but your ability to discover new artists not under their contracts. Internet radio is a growing force and a growing threat to their ability to pick what music you buy.

I can only hope that they have overreached; that the huge amount of money involved here makes their motives visible to Congress. And that Congress cares. That sure makes it sound like a lost cause, doesn't it?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?