 |
 |   Subaru 1-3-2-4 Premium join:2001-05-31 Greenwich, CT clubs: | Re: United States Copyright Royalty Board ?? I agree I never heard of it until now. | |
|
 |  |   Dude111 An Awesome Dude Premium join:2003-08-04 USA | United States Copyright Royalty Board ??
Why dont they just NOT TELL ANYONE THEY ARE STREAMING??
The RIAA sucks pond water!!!!!! | |
|
 |  |
 |  |   TK Junk Mail Go ahead, make my day Premium join:2002-03-03 Margate City, NJ clubs:
·Comcast
| Re: United States Copyright Royalty Board ?? said by kyramilan :TCH -Actually, they did. Internet Radio Stations did file objections. Then where is their filings at the Royalty Board web site? -- -- My BLOG My Web Page | |
|
 |  |  |  |
 |   sirwoogie Blah Premium join:2002-01-02 Carleton, MI
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
| quote: A question I have is where were all these music streaming groups with their comments on the hearings that have been ongoing thru 2006? They had their chance to make their case, but they didn't take part. NOW, they are all running around and whining. Where were they for the last year?
As stated in the various blogs and posts (omitted on BBR story post), the webcasters were present via their representative organizations (e.g. International Webcasting Association (»www.webcasters.org/), etc.). The recommendations and arguments made by those organizations were ignored.
Another good forum thread is over at RP:
»www.radioparadise.com/content.ph···&start=0
The blog post by Bill from RP has greater detail and links. | |
|
 |  nasadude
join:2001-10-05 Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| said by TK Junk Mail :... A question I have is where were all these music streaming groups with their comments on the hearings that have been ongoing thru 2006? They had their chance to make their case, but they didn't take part. NOW, they are all running around and whining. Where were they for the last year? what difference does it make whether they made comments and what they were? I doubt that any comments contrary to the recording industries' desires were seriously considered or even considered at all.
This entire government is by the business, for the business and nothing but the business. Consumers and other "little people" aren't part of the equation. | |
|
 |  |   TK Junk Mail Go ahead, make my day Premium join:2002-03-03 Margate City, NJ clubs:
·Comcast
edit: March 5th, @06:11PM
| Re: United States Copyright Royalty Board ?? said by nasadude :what difference does it make whether they made comments and what they were? I doubt that any comments contrary to the recording industries' desires were seriously considered or even considered at all. This entire government is by the business, for the business and nothing but the business. Consumers and other "little people" aren't part of the equation. The backgrounds of the 3 judges on the Royalty Board don't indicate a pro-business anti-consumer bias: »www.loc.gov/crb/background/crb-judges.html
Mr. Sledge ... served twelve years on the Alabama State Council on the Arts, where he was chair for two years. Other arts jobs include service as a director on the regional Southern Arts Federation, representing Alabama, a director of the Alabama Symphony Orchestra and Alabama advocacy captain for Americans for the Arts.
Dr. Wisniewski ... has served as vice-chair of the certification and review committee and member of the governing board of Central Maryland Health Systems Agency; as a member of the Montgomery County Commission on Aging; as a member of 1999-2000 Governors Task Force on Regulatory Reform in the State of Maryland.
William J. Roberts has been appointed as a copyright royalty judge with expertise in copyright law. Mr. Roberts began his legal career in the Copyright Office in 1987. He was a Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel attorney for the entire twelve-year history of the Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel. Mr. Roberts is currently an adjunct faculty member at the George Mason University School of Law where he teaches copyright law. -- -- My BLOG My Web Page | |
|
 |  |  |   sirwoogie Blah Premium join:2002-01-02 Carleton, MI
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
| Re: United States Copyright Royalty Board ?? I don't disagree that their background seems to favor being on the webcasters side. Those judges being as educated in economics, copyright law and artistic areas I find it hard to believe they came to this conclusion.
Something else stinks here. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |
 |  |   kyramilan
join:2006-11-26 Pensacola, FL
·Verizon Online DSL
·1and1
·Cox HSI
| said by nasadude :said by TK Junk Mail :... A question I have is where were all these music streaming groups with their comments on the hearings that have been ongoing thru 2006? They had their chance to make their case, but they didn't take part. NOW, they are all running around and whining. Where were they for the last year? what difference does it make whether they made comments and what they were? I doubt that any comments contrary to the recording industries' desires were seriously considered or even considered at all. This entire government is by the business, for the business and nothing but the business. Consumers and other "little people" aren't part of the equation. Exactly! | |
|
 markopoleo
join:2003-04-02 Bonne Terre, MO | Yawn, just start in other countries like most do already. Stream from russia or some other nation don't have to worry. problem solved. I listen to most stations now that just rebroadcast songs from the USA stations now. | |
|
 |  |
 |  |  stevecraig
join:2006-12-05 Traverse City, MI | Re: Or just don't use RIAA branded music. Hear Hear! Or hear there... or wherever...
studios and producers will get the message eventually... or RIAA will be the last ones left to "turn out the lights" | |
|
 |
 |   cdru Go Colts Premium,MVM join:2003-05-14 Fort Wayne, IN
·Verizon FIOS
| Re: Increase price to kill "unlicensed" webcasters The RIAA could care less who is playing the music whether its a small time site or something like iTunes (although I don't beleive they stream, you get the idea). All they care about is getting their money. And because streaming doesn't get them nearly as much as you buying a CD, they don't like streaming. -- Go Colts | |
|
 |  |   Tomek Premium join:2002-01-30 Brooklyn, NY | Re: Increase price to kill "unlicensed" webcasters I always thought that it is better to get paid less but by more sources than getting paid more from very limited sources. I guess they want people to force them into online music stores. -- Semper Fi | |
|
 |  |  |  rradina
join:2000-08-08 Chesterfield, MO
·Charter Pipeline
| Re: Increase price to kill "unlicensed" webcasters I agree with one modification -- I always thought it was good to get paid at all. If, as the Internet broadcasters claim, they go out of business, then the RIAA gets nothing. I guess they must assume the revenues will go elsewhere?
Does anyone know how the Internet broadcaster royalty structures compare to XM or Sirius? Both are commercial free and totally funded by subscribers, right? At $12/month, how much goes to the RIAA vs. songs played per month.
Does anyone know how much fees the Internet broadcasters are paying under the percentage of revenue rules? Perhaps the RIAA felt that the Internet broadcasters were not under any pressure to generate revenue without per song fees. For instance, even if a broadcaster has millions of listeners, if they are not generating sufficient advertising revenue, the RIAA may not be getting what it considers is a fair fee for that many listeners.
I'm certainly not defending the RIAA but if getting paid is better than not getting paid, they have to have some reason to charge fees that would put these stations out of business. Granted, there's always the cynical view that they want to drive the revenue elsewhere for a hidden agenda but I don't know enough yet to determine if that's a realistic argument. | |
|
 |  |  pabster
join:2001-12-09 Waterloo, IA
·Mediacom
| said by cdru :The RIAA could care less who is playing the music whether its a small time site or something like iTunes (although I don't beleive they stream, you get the idea). All they care about is getting their money. And because streaming doesn't get them nearly as much as you buying a CD, they don't like streaming. It's more than that. Streaming presents an opportunity for PIRACY! Those thieves!
This is typical RIAA at work. I guess enough cash flew under the table to bribe the necessary people, per usual. | |
|
 |  |  |  AnonShawUser
join:2006-06-17 Calgary, AB | Re: Increase price to kill "unlicensed" webcasters I haven't seen fit to download any music to save on my computer, since Winamp 5 was released and I discovered their online shoutcast media library feature.
Guess I'll have to go back to downloading my music the old fashioned way. | |
|
 daslog
join:2002-04-10 Milford, NH | So what's the problem? They own the rights to the content, they should be able to charge for it.
Or is this another "we should be able to pirate it becuase it's easy to" post? | |
|
 |   Maxo Your tax dollars at work. Premium,VIP join:2002-11-04 Tallahassee, FL clubs:
·Embarq
| Re: So what's the problem? said by daslog :They own the rights to the content, they should be able to charge for it. Or is this another "we should be able to pirate it becuase it's easy to" post? If you read about monopolies and how they relate to destroying the theory of capitalism you will see why this should not be allowed. Adam Smith is a good starting point to start reading. -- "Padre, nobody said war was fun now bowl!" - Sherman T Potter
»www.cafepress.com/maxolasersquad
»maxolasersquad.com/
»maxolasersquad.com/network/ My DSL Network Guide
»myspace.com/mlsquad | |
|
 |  Carnivore
join:2003-01-06
| said by daslog :They own the rights to the content, they should be able to charge for it. Or is this another "we should be able to pirate it becuase it's easy to" post? daslog, nobody is looking for a way to pirate music here. Webcasters currently pay high rates for the rights to legally stream music. The RIAA and their copyright board just jacked those rates so high that it will now cost the webcasters more than twice as much in royalties to play those same songs as they can make in revenue. The copyright board has made their business model unsustainanble for all but the richest mega-corporations. This is RIAA greed to the max.
If anything the RIAA is encouraging piracy, because now the only way for these legitimate webcasters to stay in business now is to move offshore and skirt U.S. law. | |
|
 |   idjk
@embarqhsd.net
| said by daslog :They own the rights to the content, they should be able to charge for it. So the power co. decided to raise your rates- would it be ok if they made it retroactive- after all they own the power? | |
|
 |  Pearadio
join:2007-03-05 Fort Mill, SC
edit: March 5th, @10:06PM
| You're 100% correct with that logic daslog.
That said, clearly this is the RIAA's twisted utopia and not beneficial to the general public good as spelled out in the core value of copyright law.
My overall feeling is that commercial entities (namely the Big 4 record labels) attempting to convert the Internet into a "viable cash cow" with this skewed decision consider the public trust nothing more than a line item on their balance sheets. We have the power to talk to one another like never before and the economic principle of demand has shaped itself into it's most literal form.
This new medium responds only to respect, not control. Armed with but a few basic Constitutional rights and a network, we ultimately have the power to shape today's market. You'd think by now most would be plugged in enough to adopt this as the new found conventional wisdom. Companies and organizations that wish to join us back at the bargaining table will prosper. Those that refuse will expire.
However dead on you are with your statement daslog, it's fairly evident you're really not as familiar with this matter as you should have been before your fired this misguided pirate analogy shot over the bow. And you're reminding us of kneejerk , "easy to post" abuses?
It won't, but should this decision result in killing off the small independent webcaster....do yourself a favor and bet your bottom dollar that the record industry's sales numbers will plummet to a point barely above Davey Jones locker. | |
|
 |  tgilberg
join:2000-10-06 Norman, OK | Wow.
You're a real worthless git. | |
|
 |  |
 |  |   FiL Premium join:2005-08-16 Silver Spring, MD | Re: So what's the problem? here, here!
Down with the RIAA!
To many artists have been screwed by this "association" of heathons and devil worshippers! Only Satan could come up with a retro-active money SCHEME like this... | |
|
 DJC2006
join:2006-10-10 Goshen, NY | ummmm....
I said this to the last post about the RIAA and I'll say it again. FUCK YOU!  | |
|
 AnnaS8
join:2005-05-26 Annapolis, MD | Just the usual... RIAA bending them over. Greedy bastards. | |
|
  jwardl
join:2000-08-12 Spring, TX
| SOP Man, the RIAA is slowly digging their own grave -- they just don't see it yet.
Every radio (internet, satellite, or conventional) station playing a song amounts to an advertisement for the RIAA's products. Most producers of a product have to PAY OTHERS to get their product publicized.
I know a guy who invented a new water filtration system. Maybe he should produce an entertaining commercial, then charge TV and radio stations to air his ad. That way, he can't fail!
Sheesh -- even people who sell through mass marketers have to give away free samples.
Good going, RIAA. Drive your advertisers out of business by nickel and diming them to death, and keep blaming college students for your declining sales. Heck, extortion is much more profitable, anyway. | |
|
  johnt
join:2002-09-13 Richmond, VA clubs:
| Think of schools.... A friend of mine who now works on air for Cox Radio used to be the program manager at a local college station. About 10 years ago they had almost shut down the station because of these fees. At the time something was worked out, to tell the truth - since it really didn't impact me at the time I didn't pay to much attention to what he was telling me. But now looking at this, it would seem to me that this might cause many schools to shut down their stations to aviod paying these higher royalties.
In the end this hurts everyone. | |
|
 |  averagedude
join:2002-01-30 Mesa, AZ | Re: Think of schools.... Now do you understand why so many Comm Colleges go "talk radio/news" or "sleepy time classical (semi/public domain)? | |
|
 |  wev567
join:2006-02-25 Pittsburgh, PA
| Anyone have a firm idea on how much a major market commercial station pays on average? At 1.2 cents per listener hour, figure 20,000 listeners on average in a typical top 20 market, the RIAA would take about $5500 a day. Does that sound right? Sounds too high for even a thriving, proven enterpise, let alone on where the revenue streams may be weak. | |
|
 |  |  |
 |  |   ScottFromWyoming
@bresnan.net
| said by wev567 :Anyone have a firm idea on how much a major market commercial station pays on average? At 1.2 cents per listener hour, figure 20,000 listeners on average in a typical top 20 market, the RIAA would take about $5500 a day. Does that sound right? Sounds too high for even a thriving, proven enterpise, let alone on where the revenue streams may be weak. Wrong! The answer is ZERO! This is a royalty that FM radio does not pay. ClearChannel, with all their stations and listeners, pays not one nickel. All radio stations, FM and internet, pay Composer royalties via ASCAP, BMI etc. But this ruling is about "Performance" royalties, supposedly shared with the bands. Everyone agrees it's a good idea, a band getting paid when a song of theirs is played, but traditional radio never has paid this royalty. Only internet radio has. But now RIAA seeks to impose huge increases (a 1000% increase or more) on Performance royalties on webcasts but still allow FM to not pay. It's all discussed in great depth on the RAIN site and at radioparadise.com. | |
|
  Boricua65 Oye, chico
join:2002-01-26 Puerto Rico
edit: March 5th, @04:15PM
| Keep on keeping on. I just keep listening to songs I downloaded, and burned on a CD, on my 10-disc CD changer. 
RIAA can kiss my dark Puerto Rican a33. They are nothing but a two-bit thug trying to get as much money as possible. "Damn, Guido, I taught I told you to take care of it?"
EDIT: for clarification. | |
|
  Dagda1175
join:2001-06-17 Goleta, CA | Charge them like a radio station just make the same rules apply that always have for regular fm radio stations. i dont think a new system is needed. | |
|
 |   Brazbit Randomness Personified Premium join:2003-10-22 Port Orchard, WA
·wavebroadband
| Re: Charge them like a radio station Or charge the regular stations like they are charging these folks... You owe us $X for every radio receiver within range of your broadcast signal for every play of every song since they might tune in to your recklessly insecure signal. That would fly.  -- My train of thought wasn't so much derailed as it was a simple case of the track not being fully laid out when the train arrived. | |
|
  NowVOIP In the beginning there was POTS
join:2006-03-05 Round Lake, IL | Another example... Of how America moves closer to being a communist country. | |
|
 |   Jehu Premium join:2002-09-13 MA
·Comcast
| Re: Another example... said by NowVOIP :Of how America moves closer to being a communist country. huh? WTF does anyone understand what "Communism" means?? | |
|
 |  |   Michieru zzz zzz zzz Premium join:2005-01-28 Miami, FL
·Speakeasy
| Re: Another example... In my honest opinion you must live under communism to understand it.
The definition alone does not truly describe communism.
As the old saying goes "People don't know what they lost till its gone." -- The only limits we have are the one's we set ourselves. | |
|
 |  |  |  tgilberg
join:2000-10-06 Norman, OK | Re: Another example... I'd certainly say you don't. Or rather, you're using the term "communism" to refer to something else entirely. | |
|
 |  |  |  |   FiL Premium join:2005-08-16 Silver Spring, MD | Re: Another example... Cuban's, an I mean Cuban's as in those people living in CUBA, don't see anything wrong with a communist/socialist economy. heh. | |
|
  TrueAudio 192khz Premium join:2002-02-24 Belmont, CA
| Killing them softly Seems to be these guys are just alienating themselves and the artists they promote/own from the direction that media and content is heading to in this Digital Age. But apparently they are only interested in short-term profit.
Solution: Don't play RIAA artists on your stations.
They must have A LOT of crazy bald heads working in that firm. No up and coming marketing Guy/Gal would be coming up with these wacky ideas, policies and procedures to lead the company forward.
Eh, what do i know though.. | |
|
 |  Dydion
join:2001-03-07 Baton Rouge, LA | Re: Killing them softly So where is a list of non-RIAA musicians that we can listen to? | |
|
 |  |  |
 |  |  |   rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04 USA | Re: Killing them softly Yeaahhhh! The Internet radio station I was working on that will play 24 hour Elliott Yamin and Harry Connick Jr. is RIAA-free  | |
|
  mrchris No more bailouts Premium join:2002-10-01 North Babylon, NY | Yet again RIAA FUCK OFF. | |
|
 brianiscool
join:2000-08-16 Miami, FL
| hmm RIAA killed the internet star.
If the RIAA charges all of them, then they won't have a constant source of income. They should charge them lass and let them regenerate their money and sue again. This is not logical  | |
|
 |   Michieru zzz zzz zzz Premium join:2005-01-28 Miami, FL | Re: hmm Get ready to pay for online radio with monthly subscription fees in a few months if there donation system simply does not work. -- The only limits we have are the one's we set ourselves. | |
|
  DOStradamus MVM join:2003-11-04 Santa Rosa, CA
edit: March 5th, @04:50PM
| ..unlike Over-The-Air Radio Stations, They already have to.. When the recording industry finally allowed internet music stations back online a few years ago, they were saddled with several restrictions RF broadcasters weren't aren't and will never be stuck with. A few:
•Artist and Album can only be announced/posted after the particular selection begins to play. No "Coming Up" tracklists. •A mandatory 60-minute delay shall be observed between taking a song request and playing it. •Four hours must elapse after playing one selection by any particular artist, before playing another by same.
I'm having a hard time trying to figure out what their "major malfunction" is; it's either: (1) Blood supply, and therefore oxygen, is being restricted to their collective brain via a spincter tightly clenched around their neck, or (2) Chronic constipation, caused by a lower intestinal blockage the size on an adult's crainum (!) Take your pick.
-NK
Oh yeah. The only thing that they did the same as their over-the-air kin was the paying of BMI/ASCAP/SESAC publisher royalties. According to someone who runs a fairly decent 80's station, these fees were accomodatingly negotiable withe those three organizations. Does this new fee go to the songwriters, as the latter, or does it go into some other organization's pockets? | |
|
 |   N10Cities Is it quittin' time yet?
join:2002-05-07 Podunk, AR clubs:
·World Lynx
·Cox HSI
| Re: ..unlike Over-The-Air Radio Stations, They already have to.. said by DOStradamus :When the recording industry finally allowed internet music stations back online a few years ago, they were saddled with several restrictions RF broadcasters weren't aren't and will never be stuck with. A few: •Artist and Album can only be announced/posted after the particular selection begins to play. No "Coming Up" tracklists. •A mandatory 60-minute delay shall be observed between taking a song request and playing it. •Four hours must elapse after playing one selection by any particular artist, before playing another by same.
I'm having a hard time trying to figure out what their "major malfunction" is; it's either: (1) Blood supply, and therefore oxygen, is being restricted to their collective brain via a spincter tightly clenched around their neck, or (2) Chronic constipation, caused by a lower intestinal blockage the size on an adult's crainum (!) Take your pick. -NK Oh yeah. The only thing that they did the same as their over-the-air kin was the paying of BMI/ASCAP/SESAC publisher royalties. According to someone who runs a fairly decent 80's station, these fees were accomodatingly negotiable withe those three organizations. Does this new fee go to the songwriters, as the latter, or does it go into some other organization's pockets? I can tell you what's wrong....they are scared someone is going to stream-rip the music. Once again, assuming everyone out there is a pirate... | |
|
 |  |   DOStradamus MVM join:2003-11-04 Santa Rosa, CA
| Re: ..unlike Over-The-Air Radio Stations, They already have to.. said by N10Cities :I can tell you what's wrong....they are scared someone is going to stream-rip the music. Once again, assuming everyone out there is a pirate... You're exactly correct there, and remember please that "home taping" is explicitly mentioned in the Copyright Act as being "noninfringing" (legal). So, WTF is going on here? They just put "the camel's nose under the tent" towards eliminating the consumer's right to "fair use" of the content of audiovisual media he owns --
Sayeth I:
"The entertainment industry is dragging the public into a DRM-laden world, and the cynical bastards will not stop until we are charged a tidy sum each time we want to listen to/watch any song/movie that we might (only think we) have already purchased a copy thereof. No more taping an album to listen to in your car on your way to work; you'll have to buy another copy for those environs. Worse yet, sell your car, buy a new one, and you won't be able to play it in your new car! Have a "favorite song"? Wear out the disk that it's on, and you'll equally wear out your MasterCard! I'll add here, that the main reason Windows Vista runs so damn slow is that the Protected Mode Video Path and Protected User Mode Audio support processes are furiously doing their thing 24/7, akin to a rent-a-cop high on coffee and doughnuts!
Thank God I'm an oldster of 44 years, already have a sizeable collection of DRM-free content I can listen to or watch whereever and on whatever I darn please, and find that most of the entertainment content currently marketed at the public is pure crap. When I *do* need some new music to listen to, there's a good used-disc store in town that I can purchase some good ol' 20th-Century, DRM-free jazz and country to add to my rock-dominated collection.
-NK | |
|
 |   ScottFromWyoming
@bresnan.net
| said by DOStradamus :Oh yeah. The only thing that they did the same as their over-the-air kin was the paying of BMI/ASCAP/SESAC publisher royalties. According to someone who runs a fairly decent 80's station, these fees were accomodatingly negotiable withe those three organizations. Does this new fee go to the songwriters, as the latter, or does it go into some other organization's pockets? »www.soundexchange.com/ | |
|
 |  |  |