You a fan of internet radio? do you webcast? You should read this

Not surprising. They've been trying to kill off internet radio for years. As I have said time and time again, this isn't about money, it's about controlling what you hear. After all, if all the average person has access to is the heavily promoted product of the majors, that's what they will likely spend their money on.

I keep hoping that satellite radio will give us more musical choices, but given the fact that Sirius still has not added a prog channel, despite it being the most requested new station, really makes me wonder...

dt
 
They've already killed off a lot of internet radio. For a year or two, most radio stations had online counterparts. All of the radio stations in my area got rid of that because of the absurd rules they were setting up where it just wasn't financially viable.
 
As I have said time and time again, this isn't about money, it's about controlling what you hear. After all, if all the average person has access to is the heavily promoted product of the majors, that's what they will likely spend their money on.

So what you are saying is that this really IS all about money, if it's about controlling what you listen to in order to get you to buy only the music that you are "allowed" to learn about through the radio.

By the way, does anyone know what this would mean (legally, logistically, ect.) for online sites like Last.fm? I just learned about them and I'd be really sad to see them shut down.
 
By the way, does anyone know what this would mean (legally, logistically, ect.) for online sites like Last.fm? I just learned about them and I'd be really sad to see them shut down.

My guess is that if this happens, the full tracks on there will disappear, but the rest of the website and the 30-second samples aren't affected by this and should remain intact.

On another note, the RIAA sucks.

EDIT: Did that article just say this is RETROACTIVE?!?! You've gotta be kidding me.
 
Guys, please try not to read inflamatory articles like that and fly off the handle without thinking about it and knowing the facts. First of all, the RIAA has ALWAYS charged on a per listener basis. That makes perfect sense - commercials at the superbowl cost WAY more, because the network knows that the superbowl attracts more viewers. For every additional listener you are able to attract, you make more from your advertisers - but since you are only attracting those listeners because of the music you are playing - royalties should increase. As with any business, you just want your profit margin to increase, so costs increase with size, but revenue increases more.

Secondly, rate escalations are perfectly normal and the only reason they were not already instituted into webcasts is because people were too busy sorting out all the other details of the new medium that popped up almost overnight. Remember, artist royalty rates increase every two years. The reason for escalations like this are because of inflation. Things that used to cost .35$ about 10 years ago cost about .65$ now. Rate escalations just balance this so everyone keeps getting, ratio wise, about what they should to maintain what is actually a static payment when viewed in terms of purchasing power.

Additionally, there are several different rules and rates that apply to small webcasters, and per listener rates and all the other craziness does not kick in until you reach a point where you are hosting a very large audience. It's kind of like hitting a new tax bracket. Remember, we all want a higher income, even if it means hitting a new tax bracket, cause even though there are more costs, it's worth it monetarily. The rules and regs surrounding webcast from the DMCA are actually quite favorable for webcasters and have allowed that industry to thrive while keeping it from crippling the traditional radio industry.

The RIAA pulls a lot of ridiculous crap, but the root of their arguments is by no means unfounded.
 
It still seems like it's corprate america kicking small buisnesses while they're down. I didn't see anything that indicated different rates, but what about those people who don't make a living off of their webcasts? Certianly, a fair number of them simply do it in their off time, and any monetary acclimation they pull in from advertisers go to keeping their webcasts up. Don't forget current overhead. I'd argue (with absolutely no knowladge mind you) that this move risks the loss of many hobbists.

That, more than anything, pisses me off.
 
It should be noted that commercial stations and non-comm stations that multi-cast have to pay these same fees.

Also, the pricing is a but different for non-comm webcasters, which include most college radio stations:

For non-commercial webcasters (tax exempt under IRS code or governmental entity) the rate is $500 per year for each channel up to 218 average connected users (Monthly ATH cap of 159,140). That rate is effective from 2006 – 2010.



It should also be noted that Sound Exchange has been charging webcasters for over three years. These new rates are actually a slightly better deal than webcasters are supposed to have paid since that time.



I'm not saying that I love the idea of charging per listener, especially since gathering the data needed for reporting your listenership is going to be another headache on top of the expense per listener, but no one should have been blindsided by these charges. Afterall, this first became an issue over five years ago.



With all that said, let me add that the public would be better served if the greedy bastards created a flat fee such as BMI, ASCAP and SESAC has been doing for traditional broadcast stations, but I'm afraid that ship has sailed. One of the major reasons they have been able to get congress on their side is the mistrust and hysteria bred through programs such as Napster and Limewire. The RIAA has congress convinced that music on the internet = the death of the recording industry and the tax dollars that come from its revenue.



Sad days...
 
So, there is a solution for the webcasters: i.e. play artists from non-RIAA affiliated labels. Last I checked, labels like Nuclear Blast and Century are not RIAA members. Sooooo, why can't one use their aryists, and the hell with the majors?

Peace,
Ray C,
 
It still seems like it's corprate america kicking small buisnesses while they're down. I didn't see anything that indicated different rates, but what about those people who don't make a living off of their webcasts? Certianly, a fair number of them simply do it in their off time, and any monetary acclimation they pull in from advertisers go to keeping their webcasts up. Don't forget current overhead. I'd argue (with absolutely no knowladge mind you) that this move risks the loss of many hobbists.

That, more than anything, pisses me off.

Whether or not one is making monetary gain off of web casting or not doesn't change the fact that they are broadcasting a performance of intellectual property, one of the six exclusive rights to copyright ownership. Like, bootlegging movies would not be okay if you were giving all the money to charity, because you are still taking income away from the people who deserve it and whose property you are exploiting. Remember this income from copyrights is not just going to labels, it goes to artists as well. In fact, the only reason labels get a piece is because artists AGREE to give them a piece for services the label can provide (marketing, distro, etc). No artist is ever forced into signing to a label, its a voluntary decision for career betterment, that pretty much every artist would leap at if given the opportunity. There is a whole team that makes an artist what they are and what they accomplish, and while we love to glorify the people who write/play the music and condemn those who run the business side, both parts are equally relevant in making the music industry function. Without the industry side, we wouldn't have all the digital sound recording technology and CD and DVD technologies which I think we can all agree make music a better experience than scratchy old analog devices.
 
Yes, I understand the whole "PAY THE BAND!" idea. I understand the record companies do a fuckton of work to get the artists to the people. I don't have a problem with everyone getting paid.

At the same time, I have a problem with companies who bully people just because they can. Just because some 18 year old fan who happens to be computer savvy runs an internet broadcast of artists he or she likes for the sake of spreading the music to otherwise incapable listeners, why should s/he be forced to hand over money? It's not like said person is going out and distributing full copies of material that his/her listeners can keep and play back whenever they want.

People don't listen to the radio anymore for 2 reasons: 1. There's other forms of entertainment that are more attractive and attention grabbing and 2. They're not in their cars. When someone's at work and tunes into a webcast station, music is getting play it otherwise would never see. Why would record companies shun free advertising?

The only logical thing I can see the RIAA charging for is actual AM/FM/XM stations (and parent companies) who broadcast over the internet.

*shrug*
 
Without the industry side, we wouldn't have all the digital sound recording technology and CD and DVD technologies which I think we can all agree make music a better experience than scratchy old analog devices.

Maybe that is the whole problem. Back when vinyl was popular, it was OK to make a copy of it and hand it to your friends. Why? Because the casette quality was subpar, and if the person liked what they heard, they HAD to go out and buy the album to fully experience it. Maybe it is time the RIAA bit the bullet and do what they do in Europe and Latin America: Switch back to vinyl.

Peace,
Ray C.
 
Whether or not one is making monetary gain off of web casting or not doesn't change the fact that they are broadcasting a performance of intellectual property, one of the six exclusive rights to copyright ownership. Like, bootlegging movies would not be okay if you were giving all the money to charity, because you are still taking income away from the people who deserve it and whose property you are exploiting. Remember this income from copyrights is not just going to labels, it goes to artists as well. In fact, the only reason labels get a piece is because artists AGREE to give them a piece for services the label can provide (marketing, distro, etc). No artist is ever forced into signing to a label, its a voluntary decision for career betterment, that pretty much every artist would leap at if given the opportunity. There is a whole team that makes an artist what they are and what they accomplish, and while we love to glorify the people who write/play the music and condemn those who run the business side, both parts are equally relevant in making the music industry function. Without the industry side, we wouldn't have all the digital sound recording technology and CD and DVD technologies which I think we can all agree make music a better experience than scratchy old analog devices.

It's nice to see a voice of reason once in a while in the online wilderness, very few people have a clue about what really goes on behind all the wheels of makes up the convulted music business. It's a lot more complicated than the uninformed realize. People want to have their cake and eat it too and have little appreciation for the long road that artists have had to travel to get their labor properly monetized. Yeah, it's all about the music, but none of it would happen if it wasn't paid for. Anyone out there want to go to work for free? It's not about control, it's about fair compensation. The internet is truly a wonder. More power it to it, just with fair business practices. You want a car - pay for it. You want a hamburger - pay for it. You want a house - pay for it. You want music - pay for it. It's pretty straightforward.
 
I keep hoping that satellite radio will give us more musical choices, but given the fact that Sirius still has not added a prog channel, despite it being the most requested new station, really makes me wonder...

Maybe they just don't realize that there is a lot of material out there already and there is an audience for it.

I also have requested a prog channel (actually, a "progpower" channel) but like you, no response. :mad: