Comments on: It's back to pirated music, I guess

It's back to pirated music, I guess

bowline — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 17:31:33 -0800

Internet Radio Royalty Rate Announced. Internet radio doomed?

By: CitrusFreak12

CitrusFreak12 — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 17:37:23 -0800

::sigh::

By: eriko

eriko — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 17:39:33 -0800

Internet radio doomed? Yes. The royalty rates were set to explicitly kill them. This sucks beyond belief -- it will, however, save me money. Since I'll have lost my primary means of finding new acts, I won't be paying to support those internet radio stations I used to listen to *or* for those new CDs that I would have discovered. Gosh, you think that's what RIAA wants -- people not buying music.

By: daninnj

daninnj — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 17:50:22 -0800

Pretty soon, the RIAA's gonna go to parties and social events where there is music playing and fine everyone listening and dancing.

By: HuronBob

HuronBob — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 17:59:01 -0800

Why is it that the music industry is choosing to destroy itself? There is no vision... so...I was humming today...do I owe anyone any money?

By: Dr-Baa

Dr-Baa — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 19:39:29 -0800

By: delmoi

delmoi — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 19:43:57 -0800

For noncommercial webcasters, the fee will be $500 per channel, for up to 159,140 ATH (aggregate tuning hours) per month. They would pay the commercial rate for all transmissions above that number. That sounds like quite a bit, indeed it works out to about 220 full time (24hr) streams. A streaming server with a maximum of 200 streams would never have to pay more then $500 a year. It doesn't seem like it would be a problem for small operators.

By: maxwelton

maxwelton — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 19:46:11 -0800

You know, as someone who is very casually into music, I can take it or leave it alone. With the outlandish behavior of the RIAA, why would I even be interested in listening to one of their acts? Odds are, you'll be breaking some law or user agreement and end up being sued. This is cool in a way--it will have me seeking out and listening to music which doesn't fall under their jurisdiction. Even if I had to trade a bit of "quality"--something I'm not convinced I'll have to do--that's a trade off I'm more than willing to make.

By: Rhomboid

Rhomboid — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 19:46:51 -0800

The thing that really sucks is that it's active retroactively through 2006! What kind of crap is that? see also.

By: neustile

neustile — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 19:47:33 -0800

Does anyone know what the soundexchange fee for non-interactive web streaming used to be before this? I had always heard it was around half a cent per listener per hour, but I don't have any real data to back that up.

By: smackfu

smackfu — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 19:49:44 -0800

I think the old rate was 0.0007, since 2002. That one was also going to "kill net radio".

By: Karmakaze

Karmakaze — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 19:52:29 -0800

Last year I bought six CDs. I realize that doesn't make me much of a consumer, but that's six more than I've bought since 1993. What made the difference? I discovered music I actully like via pandora and last.fm, as opposed to the boring crap on broadcast radio. Once again the RIAA makes it clear that they don't want my money. Oh well, their loss.

By: smackfu

smackfu — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 19:56:26 -0800

These are just new rates, not a new fee like some people seem to think.

By: neustile

neustile — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 20:03:42 -0800

Hmm.. their conversion from $/performance -> $/listenerhour is strange, they claim the average web station plays 16 tracks an hour. That's sixteen straight under 3:45 songs with no breaks for ids or other programming. Even for algorithmic "non interactives" like Pandora/last/etc that's a stretch. Looks like it's time to bring back prog rock -- 1 performance/hour will stick it to the RIAA!

By: Effigy2000

Effigy2000 — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 20:04:34 -0800

A monstrous Tyrannosaurus was walking along one day, minding his own business, when God appeared in front of it. "You are a Tyrannosaurus" said the deity. "You are one of the biggest and greatest of my creations that has existed on this planet so far. But I have decided that a meteor shall destroy you and your brethren, to make way for the newest of my creations. But I present you, a giant of what will soon be yesteryear, with an opportunity. I shall save you, and you alone, if you can recognize the great opportunity I am presenting you with." The Tyrannosaurus stared at the deity blankly, before trying to eat him. Finding it was unable to kill God, it tried to stomp on him, which was equally futile. The Tyrannosaurus tried everything it could to kill the deity and every attack failed. And then the meteor God had spoken of struck and killed him and all his brethren. The Tyrannosaurus, once at the forefront of its game, was now dead because it had failed to see what any creature with a modicum of sense would have so plainly seen. But God felt sorry for it and resurrected the creature nonetheless billions of years later as the RIAA. But it was to be punished for its prior failure, and was doomed to repeat its mistake over and over again...

By: octothorpe

octothorpe — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 20:07:17 -0800

From the front page of Radio Paradise, my personal favorite 'net radio station: For some time, we've suffered with a system where we pay a large chunk (10%-12%) of our income to the Big 5 record companies - while FM stations and radio conglomerates like Clear Channel pay nothing. Now they want even more. In our case, an amount equal to 125% of our income. What the hell? I've bought hundreds of dollars of music that I've heard first on RP, stuff that I'm never going to find on the radio. Why does the recording industry hate it's customers?

By: Mr_Zero

Mr_Zero — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 20:10:03 -0800

Last year I bought six CDs. What are the six CDs you bought?

By: Salmonberry

Salmonberry — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 20:15:24 -0800

"The RIAA can, at any time, agree to strike a deal with independent webcasters to allow us to pay a more realistic royalty, one based on a percentage of our income." Clearchannel must be loving this. Now each station has to go begging to those lawyers.

By: Effigy2000

Effigy2000 — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 20:15:45 -0800

Mr_Zero: "Last year I bought six CDs. What are the six CDs you bought?" Do blank ones count?

By: phooky

phooky — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 20:17:14 -0800

This is another opportunity to point out that there's a growing number of stations that primarily play music that's under creative commons or other human-friendly licenses. Systrum Sistum's a nice one if you like beeping noises. (Of course, I'm assuming such stations are exempt. I wouldn't put it past them to try to get cash money from an online talking clock.) I composed and recorded the sound of myself typing in early 1987. If you work in an office with more than four people in earshot of your keyboard, please contact me for performance rights. Alternately, I am now making keyboard cozies available at very reasonable prices.

By: quarter waters and a bag of chips

quarter waters and a bag of chips — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 20:18:18 -0800

Start supporting independent acts. Now. Commercial music is shit anyway. I won't miss the record industry when it's gone.

By: grobstein

grobstein — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 20:18:49 -0800

Last year I bought six CDs. What are the six CDs you bought? Blank CD-Rs for burning pirated music, natch.

By: grobstein

grobstein — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 20:19:04 -0800

doh

By: davejay

davejay — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 20:23:25 -0800

Allow me to explain this for you folks who might be missing the obvious. 1. Internet radio will not die, because large record companies (members of the RIAA) will set up internet radio stations to showcase new bands that nobody has ever heard of in an attempt to drum up sales. You know, just like they do with radio. 2. What will die is Internet radio operated by medium-sized operators that play sufficient variety, and can afford sufficient numbers/quality of streams, as to render music purchases much less necessary for the average music consumer. These operatings will be forced to close up shop unless they significantly raise operating revenue (unlikely) significantly reduce the number/quality of streams (likely, but dropping them to small operator status) or have an angel investor who doesn't mind losing money consistently month after month. 3. What will also die is the honest small-time webcaster, who may have been happy to pay the fees on an ongoing basis to date, but can't afford the lump-sum $500 expenditure. These stations, run by college students and whatnot, could afford to determine a given month's expenditures after the fact and either send the cash (out of beer money) or fold the station as too pricey; now they'll look at the $500 lump sum and either think "wow, too much" or "f-it, I'll just run the station anyway" and can be fined out of existence. 4. Finally, what will also die is the large non-RIAA-member internet radio stations, whose profit margins (if they exist) will be too thin to justify, especially in competition with the RIAA-member-operated stations. Granted, a few of them will be willing and able to survive by virtue of delivering a superior (ie not new-RIAA-artist-pimping) product, but such endeavors are typically harder to finance via advertising (as we see in broadcast radio, where the largest markets have a few "alternative" stations versus the large mainstream behemoths.) 5. Finally, what will also die are those stations willing and able to survive on non-RIAA-member music exclusively, as the RIAA will continue their standard tactics of "sue first, have proof later"; every station that plays music AT ALL and does not pay fees (even if they don't need to) will be forced to prove it in court, which will bankrupt them (via settlement fees or actual costs.) So Internet radio is not dead! Huzzah! It's simply going to be the same dumbed-down garbage that you're used to hearing over the airwaves now. The record companies have every right to do it legally, and morals don't matter 'round these parts. As a general rule, I strongly advise you learn to play a musical instrument, and teach your kids to do the same, so that over time we can redevelop a society that prefers making music to consuming it.

By: frogan

frogan — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 20:23:28 -0800

Internet radio doomed? Yes, because clearly pirated mp3s disappeared with the demise of Napster.

By: davejay

davejay — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 20:27:06 -0800

Sorry for the typos. I was cranky when I wrote it. By the way, visit songfight.org -- get what amounts to a free CD every week or so, and only half of the songs are crap!

By: Karmakaze

Karmakaze — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 20:29:34 -0800

What are the six CDs you bought

I always hesistate to admit to my music tastes for fear of being judged. The artists were Poe, Frou Frou, Veinna Teng and Michele Shocked. (I already knew about Michele Shocked, but from a long way back.)

By: pyramid termite

pyramid termite — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 20:32:01 -0800

So Internet radio is not dead! Huzzah! it'll just move overseas ... or people will set up wildcat "pirate" operations

By: senor biggles

senor biggles — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 21:12:02 -0800

IANAL but last time I checked US law was still not international law. The 95 percent of humanity that lives outside the reach of domestic US law will still be able to pump out good tunes on the internet. Washington will try to convince/bully other countries to comply, but is there any reason to think that this will succeed where previous attempts to impose US copyright law extraterritorially have failed? Unfortunately, it probably does mean Americans are screwed. Unable to block the foreign net radio stations from broadcasting, the RIIA will have no choice but to go after US consumers for listening to non-American stations.

By: Jimbob

Jimbob — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 21:12:41 -0800

it'll just move overseas ... or people will set up wildcat "pirate" operations Exactly. Already systems like Peercast make it fairly easy to broadcast anonymously. Peercast is like the BitTorrent of internet radio. The quality of the streams, and the variety of stations currently isn't great, but if people are forced onto it, I'm sure it will improve (or another better built system will come about). And as you say, I'm not sure how these new "rates" apply to stations outside the US. But I'm guessing if the RIAA has had as much trouble as they have closing down AllOfMP3.com, there are thousands of people in Russia who would be quite happy to run a Shoutcast server for a reasonable price.

By: pwedza

pwedza — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 21:17:10 -0800

Damn, I hope this one manages to get by. Luxuria is small, puts out great music, and asks for donations as is to keep things going. The added expense would be a big burden.

By: goodnewsfortheinsane

goodnewsfortheinsane — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 21:20:53 -0800

Washington will try to convince/bully other countries to comply Oh come on. How? George is gonna get on the phone to The Hague and tell Jan-Peter "I want those Dutch pirate radio stations off the internets now"?

By: zouhair

zouhair — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 21:32:23 -0800

As I sayed elsewhere, a country that let some stuff like RIAA grow must be a shitty country

By: pwedza

pwedza — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 21:41:03 -0800

As I sayed elsewhere, a country that let some stuff like RIAA grow must be a shitty country Then I assume that you dont' listen to American music. Or is it still cool to listen to music from shitty countries?

By: freshwater_pr0n

freshwater_pr0n — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 21:51:16 -0800

Kids, listen to Steve Albini. What he said was true then, and it's even more true now. Once we stop trying to fight these stupid for-profit organizations and put our money into educating musicians on how to make smart choices for themselves, things will get better.

By: isopraxis

isopraxis — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 21:55:23 -0800

Gosh, you think that's what RIAA wants -- people not buying music. It has worked for me already. Unless there is an artist (especially indie and local) that I really appreciate, I won't be buying any media at any stores at all. I will not support RIAA or CRIA in any fashion. I will support my local artists and live shows, bootlegs and anything else that cuts these dirty pimps out of the loop.

By: Pastabagel

Pastabagel — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 22:01:11 -0800

IT won't kill internet radio, it will simply consolidate it. I'm pretty sure soma.fm is going to survive, but a lot of other stations that play the same kind of music they do won't, will will drive many of those listeners to soma. The same is true of Last.fm, or the satellite radio companies.

By: perianwyr

perianwyr — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 22:10:52 -0800

well, a 200 listener private station with an uploaded playlist that is totally request driven was illegal as fuck before this, and remains illegal as fuck. so ok

By: George_Spiggott

George_Spiggott — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 22:11:10 -0800

IT won't kill internet radio, it will simply consolidate it. It will kill free internet radio. They only way they'll be able to pay their bills is with advertising, subscriptions, or both. This is a wretched thing the CRB is doing. Bizarrely, they're actually giving the RIAA more than it asked for -- they were prepared to do a deal based on percentage of revenues, which would have given noncommercial operators a way to survive, but the CRB actually decided to nail noncommercial operators to the wall. In short, they're forcing internet radio into the same revenue model as broadcast. Welcome to the ClearChannel internet.

By: YoBananaBoy

YoBananaBoy — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 22:11:20 -0800

How? George is gonna get on the phone to The Hague and tell Jan-Peter "I want those Dutch pirate radio stations off the internets now"? Well, maybe George won't be doing the talking.

By: stammer

stammer — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 22:11:37 -0800

Oh come on. How? George is gonna get on the phone to The Hague and tell Jan-Peter "I want those Dutch pirate radio stations off the internets now"? These days, US trade agreements usually include something about protecting American IP. The 2005 US-Australia Free Trade Agreement, for example, required Australia to extend copyright from 50 to 70 years after the author's death, and to start using legal force to enforce DRM restrictions.

By: stammer

stammer — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 22:14:40 -0800

Here's an article about the AUSFTA and its effect on Australian copyright law.

By: delmoi

delmoi — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 22:17:19 -0800

The Tyrannosaurus, once at the forefront of its game, was now dead because it had failed to see what any creature with a modicum of sense would have so plainly seen. But God felt sorry for it and resurrected the creature nonetheless billions of years later as the RIAA I'm pretty sure the dinosaurs died just a few tens of millions of years ago, not billions. Anyway, I just pirate all my music.

By: oaf

oaf — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 22:41:36 -0800

As I sayed elsewhere, a country that let some stuff like RIAA grow must be a shitty country You in particular are not really in a position to judge.

By: Mikey-San

Mikey-San — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 22:42:55 -0800

Pretty soon, the RIAA's gonna go to parties and social events where there is music playing and fine everyone listening and dancing. It ain't a scene, it's a goddamned arms race. Shit, do I owe the record companies money now?

By: rollbiz

rollbiz — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 23:34:17 -0800

Worcester's own DownhillBattle wants to take the music back. They've been napping, please send an email (I did!) and ask them to wake up...!

By: saysthis

saysthis — Sun, 04 Mar 2007 00:14:37 -0800

Dear RIAA, I'm downloading like 50 albums right now, and I live in China. When I finish downloading these albums, I'm going to give them, for free, to my friends who are interested in better American music than you've put on CRI (China Radio International, who these fucks are totally in bed with). And then you know what I'll do? Once I have enough MP3's, I'm going to start a podcast. Of free, non-RIAA music in Chinese. And I'll probably also get that job at CRI I've been angling for, and I'll kill your industry from that angle too. You are so, so dead. So dead.

By: crashlanding

crashlanding — Sun, 04 Mar 2007 00:23:50 -0800

If ClearChannel stations pay no royalties as has been mentioned above, shouldn't that open the RIAA and CC to some sort of anti-trust lawsuit? Not that it would ever succeed, I'm just curious as to the legality of the RIAA sponsoring certain radio stations.

By: Auz

Auz — Sun, 04 Mar 2007 02:14:18 -0800

"If ClearChannel stations pay no royalties as has been mentioned above, shouldn't that open the RIAA and CC to some sort of anti-trust lawsuit?" I think they pay for licences (or licenses) from ASCAP and BMI through the Radio Music License Committee. Which cost more but give you rights play anything.

By: paulsc

paulsc — Sun, 04 Mar 2007 03:47:25 -0800

I think that one effect of this will be to make Internet "talk radio" a much more prominent programming model. "Talk" is already by far the most lucrative terrestrial and satellite radio programming, and those broadcast mechanisms don't suffer the "double dipper" royalty issues that Internet radio has been operating under, by law. Furthermore, because of the special treatment over-the-air broadcasters recieve in their music licensing terms for concurrent Internet streaming of their broadcast programs, I feel that a court challenge of the legitimacy of the Copyright Royalty Board might well prevail under anti-trust law, although IANAL. I'd be surprised if big operators like last.fm aren't offered sweetheart deals by RIAA through SoundExchange, and perhaps LoudCity or other specialist firm interested in providing services for small independent operators don't get similar "deals" that take them off the "hook" that these egregious terms for a "compulsory" (i.e. license that must granted by statute, if the licensee complies with terms) license. If it grants those kinds of special licenses, I think SoundExchange and other administrative interests in this royalty system expose themselves to suit under other theories of interstate commerce law, until such time as Congress follows with additional statutory exemptions. But in the meantime, I think this is going to be another irritant in the relationship between U.S. musicians and their audiences. Eventually, being a musician will carry a greater connotation of being an a**hole, than being a lawyer does now. The lawyers probably will have the last laugh.

By: eustacescrubb

eustacescrubb — Sun, 04 Mar 2007 06:30:56 -0800

Is there a list, anywhere, of all the non-RIAA member labels and artists?

By: senor biggles

senor biggles — Sun, 04 Mar 2007 06:37:30 -0800

Eustace, while not a list per se, www.riaaradar.com is pretty useful for checking whether an act is RIAA or not.

By: eriko

eriko — Sun, 04 Mar 2007 07:15:11 -0800

I always hesistate to admit to my music tastes for fear of being judged. Honi soit qui mal y pense! The artists were Poe, Frou Frou, Veinna Teng and Michele Shocked. You were listening to Radio Paradise, and I claim my five pounds. If not, what were you listening to, because I want to find that station as well.

By: srboisvert

srboisvert — Sun, 04 Mar 2007 07:20:49 -0800

I look forward to it being illegal to remember music or movies.

By: Karmakaze

Karmakaze — Sun, 04 Mar 2007 07:33:49 -0800

You were listening to Radio Paradise, and I claim my five pounds. If not, what were you listening to, because I want to find that station as well.

It had been Sirens of Song on live365 until work blocked live365, at which point I floated about a bit on last.fm, but found the results a little too random. When Pandora came out, I made a personal station based on the new artist names I'd discovered, and found a few more.

By: eriko

eriko — Sun, 04 Mar 2007 07:37:04 -0800

They only way they'll be able to pay their bills is with advertising, subscriptions, or both. This is a wretched thing the CRB is doing. No, the only way they'll be able to survive is if they cut a deal with RIAA to not have to pay the full fee. The rates are quite deliberately set to make it basically impossible to run a profitable web stream, because as your audience grows, your fees grow faster than your ad revenues can. I don't see a single point where the curves cross. That's what I mean by "kill." You have two choices -- bow to RIAA, or lose money forever. Current webcasters are basically destroyed, because these fees are retroactive to 2006, which means that (for example) Radio Paradise is now liable for somewhere in the range of $2 million for music they've already played, and payed the $.0007 per performance rate. This means that Bill doesn't exactly have a lot of negotiating room.

By: autodidact

autodidact — Sun, 04 Mar 2007 08:15:01 -0800

Like many posters in this thread, the only CDs aside from Prince that I've bought in the past year have been from people who I've discovered through some form of unlicensed online preview or distribution. Can't recommend Regina Spektor enough if you've got a special girl who's into art. Napster was good for music. Myspace and live365 and everything like that is good for the business. Idiots!

By: bashos_frog

bashos_frog — Sun, 04 Mar 2007 08:18:00 -0800

I just used that RIAA radar to look up all the music I ripped from the Geico caveman's iPod. Since it is all RIAA-free, (or unknown, but probably safe) I am going to make it a point to buy as many of those albums as I can find. For me it means increasing my music buying by about 1000%. But I think it's smarter to start demonstrating there is a large market for unencumbered music, for more talented musicians to tap. Let the RIAA survive on Britney and pals (and the sheeple that buy them) as long as I can get better stuff with less hassle.

By: eustacescrubb

eustacescrubb — Sun, 04 Mar 2007 08:52:49 -0800

thanks, senor biggles. They do have a Top 100 RIAA-safe albums list. Not surprisingly, almost every album I've bought in the past year is on that list. Maybe because I buy a lot from eMusic. Sadly, all of Wilco's catalogue is on an RIAA label. Also, Radiohead, but interestingly, not Thom Yorke's solo album.

By: senor biggles

senor biggles — Sun, 04 Mar 2007 09:26:59 -0800

Resident of the UK can find an analogous service at www.bpiradar.com

By: bhance

bhance — Sun, 04 Mar 2007 09:39:38 -0800

There's actually an exception to this whole royalties/webcasting fees/smorgasbord of suck: If a service/webcaster 'has obtained direct licenses' (pdf) from an artist and negotiated their own terms. Typically this has never happened because it would mean X stations having to get signed contracts from Y number of artists. This == a recordkeeping/paper shuffling nightmare. Know what would be nice? If a percentage of Y artists signed a nice 5-year $0 negotiation with a list of about X small and medium sized streamers. It would send the message that they like the promotion and publicity they recieve from these small broadcasters - broadcasters that only make up a small fraction of the already fractional checks they're getting from their 'copyright representation' in the first place. If you'd like to descend even further into the clusterfsck that is legal, compliant webcasting, don't forget the new SoundExchange reporting requirements that just kicked in! The ones that mandate webcasters have to provide between 9 and 11 variables for every song they play to SoundExchange. (Two of which (ISRC,actual total performances) are basically impossible to provide.) So, yes, there has been a significant raising of the bar, in both licensing fees and recordkeeping requirements (not to mention proposed DRM-only streaming law), which should kill any doubt that there is a concentrated effort to kill off webcasting in the U.S. (Also, while davejay's right on the money with his 5-point post, note that there are special cases/rates for folks under a certain Aggregate Tuning Hours. It still sucks, but I'm not sure someone like soma.fm even hits the 159,140 ATH/per month number.)

By: davejay

davejay — Sun, 04 Mar 2007 10:18:57 -0800

Also, while davejay's right on the money with his 5-point post, note that there are special cases/rates for folks under a certain Aggregate Tuning Hours. In case you stop back in this thread: is that true even with the minimum $500/yr charge mentioned in the article? If so, link details, as I'm quite interested to find out more.

By: bhance

bhance — Sun, 04 Mar 2007 10:38:07 -0800

I guess I screwed up on that one - still a $500/yr min for single-channel, noncommercial (tax-exempt/.edu's) webcasters -- but the commercial ones get hit with the fee + $/per performances. So my previous soma.fm example was crap, because they are commercial, but things like college streams etc. still get to stream for a $500 flatfee provided they don't hit that ATH .. and I've never seen a college station anywhere near that ATH number. I'll have to dig into what the other exemptions are ... There's some other random factors (small webcaster settlement act participants) that puts them in only a slightly better position for 2006 payments - but not for anything going forward. (my email should be in profile btw, drop me a line)

By: chance

chance — Sun, 04 Mar 2007 12:30:36 -0800

Screw these guys! Is new media doomed or is the old system parasitic middlemen strangling creative dialog doomed? They only exist as long as artists give them power over their work. I know no one cares a hoot about poetry, but I post mine on my website under a Creative Commons license and only submit work to magazines that will publish already published material.

By: vorfeed

vorfeed — Sun, 04 Mar 2007 13:12:07 -0800

They only exist as long as artists give them power over their work. That's worth saying again. If you've got a band, I guarantee you there's some small label somewhere that's looking for a band just like yours. And even if not, it costs about $1000 to press 500 pro-duplicated CDs with full-color booklet and traycard, plus another $100 for 500 CD cases. If you're a four-piece, and each of you can put up $275 or so, you can release an album... and chances are you can record that album on the bassist's computer for free. Promotion and sales for the album (through message boards, local live shows, internet radio, p2p sharing, Myspace, and Ebay) are also free, or at least afforable. Why bother with the big-time rip-off labels?

By: drstein

drstein — Sun, 04 Mar 2007 19:59:06 -0800

"You are so, so dead. So dead" RIAA: Dying since the word "mp3" hit the internet. The problem is, they're not dying. The RIAA seems to be rather successful at pushing through bullshit fee hike after bullshit fee hike. Let's not forget their participation in gestapo type raids. The occasional MeFi user (or Farker, or Slashdot user) saying "i'm not buying CDs" is not even a blip on their radar. They've got our Congress critters (including 'liberal' Dianne Feinstein) wrapped up in their checkbooks. What we need is an entire regime change. These fuckers need to go.

By: pyramid termite

pyramid termite — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 05:39:05 -0800

The problem is, they're not dying. cd sales continue to go down ... that's dying, anyway you care to look at it

By: drezdn

drezdn — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 08:10:25 -0800

Are most of the artists on emusic free of RIAA control?

By: Mikey-San

Mikey-San — Wed, 07 Mar 2007 23:14:50 -0800

cd sales continue to go down ... that's dying, anyway you care to look at it If you produce fewer of something, you automatically sell lower amounts.

By: Draconicfire

Draconicfire — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 06:06:55 -0800

here is the real question then. If none of the artists that I stream are recorded by members of the RIAA, how can they charge me for them?

By: Draconicfire

Draconicfire — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 07:07:38 -0800

I currently stream through a SHOUTcast server, that I pay for with ingame currence through Secondlife. As a radio station "owner" of sorts, would I be the one in the hot seat so to speak? or is the owner of the stream that I rent? Also, if I use a server that Is overseas, would I still have to pay?

By: sequential

sequential — Tue, 13 Mar 2007 09:32:13 -0800

The Copyright Royalty Board has announced new copyright licensing fees for internet radio stations. The new fees are a staggering increase over our previous annual royalty rate of about $22,000 to over $600,000 for 2006. And the fees are even higher in 2007, based on our current listenership, they'll be over $1 million dollars for 2007! (Which is 3-4 times what we hope to raise in 2007). If you think this is unfair to internet radio, and you are an American citizen, you can send a letter to your congressman showing your support for internet radio. We already have the attention of Congress, so now you have to let them know you support internet radio and that royalty rates shouldn't be structured in a way that will put small webcasters out of business.¹

By: bowline

bowline — Sun, 18 Mar 2007 19:14:41 -0800

Here's a great history of US copyright, radio and music by Kurt Hanson.