namelesstavern.net

http://blog.wired.com/music/2007/03/us_ ... ht_ro.html

On Friday, which is generally accepted in public relations circles as the best day of the week to release controversial news, the United States Copyright Royalty Board (image to the right) announced new royalty rates for webcasts, effective from 2006 to 2010.

The board ignored the arguments of the International Webcasting Association and other webcasters, and apparently simply endorsed the proposal of the RIAA-associated SoundExchange royalty organization, which represents the major and some indie labels.

The new rates force webcasters to pay for each song streamed to each user, and increase over the next few years as follows:

2006: $0.0008 to stream one song to one listener
2007: $.0011
2008: $.0014
2009: $.0018
2010: $.0019

Those fees will add up quickly for larger webcasters; the Radio and Internet Newsletter (RAIN) calculates that, assuming that the average station plays 16 songs per hour, sites would have to pay "about 1.28 cents" per listener per hour using the 2006 rate, and would owe this retroactively, in addition to licensing fees going forward. RAIN's math indicates that the rate would render Internet radio unsustainable, or at the very least, more ad-laden than terrestrial radio -- and that's before the songwriters' licenses are taken into account:

"Even adding in ancillary revenues from occasional video gateway ads, banner ads on the website, and so forth, total revenues per listener-hour would only be in the 1.0 to 1.2 cents per listener-hour range. That math suggests that the royalty rate decision — for the performance alone, not even including composers' royalties! — is in the in the ballpark of 100% or more of total revenues."

The situation looks grim for webcasters large and small. Even tiny sites would owe the minimum of $500 per channel per year, which could also have implications for webcasters who provide customized radio stations, since the CRB does not define whether those would each constitute a "channel" (whatever that is). Webcasters have a 15-day period to ask the CRB to rehear arguments.

fuck the riaa

I'm all for this. Maybe now we can get some decent bandwith in my office.

we blocked streaming radio here. I love it at home thou.

Evermore wrote:fuck the riaa

with a 12-foot radioactive plutonium dick

atlast an idea both sides of the politcal spectrum can get behinf.

I listen to radio pretty much all day at work and at home, kinda pisses me off.

They're hardcore killing the music industry and they need to be raped and killed.

Ginzburgh wrote:I'm all for this. Maybe now we can get some decent bandwith in my office.

perhaps if your IT department didn't consist of half-wit monkeys they could figure out how to block it

Harrison wrote:They're hardcore killing the music industry and they need to be raped and killed.

for once i agree with harrison. this says it perfectly

So I'm not really in the know about internet radio - what is it/how does it work, and what type of music have they been playing?

Internet radio plays whatever the station wants to. It isn't like airwaves radio that is restricted to one AM/FM band. It's just a stream over the internet that plays music.

If the RIAA has it their way, the internet radio as we know it now will cease to exist.

Harrison wrote:Internet radio plays whatever the station wants to. It isn't like airwaves radio that is restricted to one AM/FM band. It's just a stream over the internet that plays music.

If the RIAA has it their way, the internet radio as we know it now will cease to exist.

Do normal radio stations have to pay royalties? I guess I could see the logic of this if they are playing artists' music without permission and normal radio stations pay for them.

Charging a flat yearly fee sounds completely bogus though. There really can't be any other reason for that other than crushing the non-commercial independent folk.

Normal radio stations and satellite radios also pay royalties. Furthermore all the dance studios have to pay royalties also.

It's stupid. The artists disagree with this completely. Unless you're Lars Fagrich...

This is getting out of hand. Artists want more ways to get their music, their art, to the people. They're being stifled. I would never, in my life, be this close to music now if it weren't for "illegal" downloading.

Spreading music is a good thing, it creates fans, it creates a following. Most bands want nothing more than to be heard and enjoyed.

This is one of those things I wouldn't shed a tear over if every single one of them got AIDS and died in a couch fire.

perhaps if your IT department didn't consist of half-wit monkeys they could figure out how to block it

It is blocked if you are hooked up to a wire but if you go wireless the blocking doesn't work.

Normal radio stations and satellite radios also pay royalties. Furthermore all the dance studios have to pay royalties also.

And yeah, I have the sirius boombox on my desk, it's pretty awesome. Maybe a good substitute for internet radio if this law gets passed. Of course, it's $12 a month. It's worth every penny imo, especially if sirius and xm merge.

ginz you know how they are blocking? Here you cannot get streams unless its approved. not even on the wireless. gotta love DMZ's

I have no idea, I'm in marketing. When you go to a site that is blocked it says "SurfControl Access Denied". Not sure if "SurfControl" is the name of the blocking software.

could be a few things then

1.they dont have it set up right.
2. the wireless internet connection is not going thru the filter
3. it is connected to a rogue ( non-company ) access point

this is what comes off the top of the head atm.

Yeah, if I had my guess I'd say the wireless isn't going through filter. We're moving into a new an improved building in August so they'll probably do it up right.

i can name about a half dozen CDs i have bought after hearing them on internet radio

none of which would have ever been played on traditional airwaves radio or eMpTyV (lol do they even play music anymore?)

it's getting to sound like a cliche, but it's true-- the RIAA doesn't want you to hear anything that they can't charge you (or someone else) for. period.

the loophole they'll never be able to close is this: they don't represent EVERYONE. there are always going to be labels and bands that choose not to be represented by the RIAA, and their music will still find its way to you somehow.

First time I ever heard the Decemberists was on internet radio and that sparked a conversation between a co-worker who is really into them. I have all their stuff now.

Hell, there's a whole corporation, Live365, that has as its business model franchising individuals into running their own internet radio sites, and using Live 365 to handle a lot of the back end stuff. I don't know the details, just seen their ads for it on the one internet radio site I go to: http://www.ebm-radio.com/news.php Hell, every time a song plays, they put a little "Buy" button by the name of the track, to send you to a legit pay-for-download service they're associated with to buy the mp3 of the song. Who knows HOW many songs have been bought that way. The RIAA is shooting themselves in the foot cutting off that revenue stream.

Also, do regular radio stations pay a fee based on number of listeners? I somehow doubt that, as there's no way to track it. If so, how can they get away with different prices based on different media? Also, what about real radio stations doing web simulcasts of their live radio broadcasts? Are those impacted?

All in all, this is bad legislation, and hopefully it gets fixed. The real losers (besides the listeners) are the small niche bands or musical groups. Big names will always get their sales, but I bet a lot of smaller acts get a sizeable percentage of their sales from people buying mp3s directly after hearing the track on an internet radio station, or even going and buying the whole album. Since mainstream radio won't play a lot of such groups, that's their ONLY wide exposure.

Stupid, stupid, stupid.

-Arlos

Can't they just advertise on internet radio like they would on a regular radio station? Problem solved?