Webcasters Set To Return To The Air
	found on Yahoo News written by jimray, edited by Nick (Plastic) [ read unedited ] posted Mon 7 Oct 6:55pm
		"Woo! I'm not sure how this has been neglected over on that other site, but it seems that webcasters are one step closer to returning to their rightful place. An adapted version of HR 5469, which had originally called for a six-month moratorium on the imposition of fees, passed the House today, October 7, after the RIAA and small webcasters came to a sensible agreement. Rather than impose the fee schedule determined by the the U.S. Copyright Office, which would have charged small web broadcasters between $125,000 and $500,000 a year to stream, the RIAA will collect whichever is the greater of a minimum annual payment of $2,000, eight percent of gross revenues or five percent of expenses." "Despite some last minute posturing by the RIAA to drop direct payments to artists, the bill passed the House unamended. Passage awaits in the Senate and could come as early as the end of the week, which would likely mean the return of a lot of our favorite broadcasters to the Internet by the end of the year."

[ more plastic... ]    

show almost all: 18 commentsbest: 0 comments by oldest first (ignore threads) newest first highest scores first oldest first newest first (ignore threads)

2.  must... find... soma...   by cortez       at Mon 7 Oct 7:33pm score of 1     ...because I am suffering some serious withdrawal symptoms. I still don't understand why the RIAA deserves a cut from webcasting more than they do from radio. Urge to kill...fading...fading...fading -- rising! Fading... fading Don't know WTF you want to do with your engineering degree? Ask me about UNH's MS Management of Technology program!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

7.  Shhh.....Don't tell anybody...   by zabuni       at Tue 8 Oct 5:02am score of 1.5 informative   in reply to comment 2     Soma's been playing Groove Salad for the past month or so. No real word on the front page, so it seems they are trying to be coy and get everything quiet. a www.somafm.com link   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   8.  Re: Shhh.....Don't tell anybody...   by cortez       at Tue 8 Oct 5:04am score of 0.5 irrelevant   in reply to comment 7     actually i noticed that it was listed on winamp radio a while back...it sounded right, but no track names? must be their clever way of avoiding hilary and crew. Don't know WTF you want to do with your engineering degree? Ask me about UNH's MS Management of Technology program!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   17.  Re: Shhh.....Don't tell anybody...   by tinsguy       at Tue 8 Oct 8:13am score of 1   in reply to comment 7     ahhhh............groove salad is back. my life is now complete again. THANK YOU ZABUNI. life is now good again. who cares about iraq and war when we have groove salad back. ENJOY!!!!!!! i have no problem with jesus christ, it's his fan club that bothers me.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

3.  finally!   by JearBear16       at Mon 7 Oct 7:58pm score of 1     I've been getting by on a combination of live365 (blech, ads), shoutcast, and icecast (eh, low quality) - to have somafm, bluemars, and others back would make me sooooooooo happy yippie! ::jumps for joy:: man + hydrodynamic forces = me   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

4.  Substance or token?   by Blue Dot       at Tue 8 Oct 12:21am score of 1     I think this is a victory for the technological movement, by which I mean the people who use the Internet--including most of the at-large public. But is radio really what this is about? I think this is important for the message that Congress is really looking into the nature of information exchange in the present age. While I'm happy that the people who like 'net radio can now have it, I don't personally care for it and most likely never will as long as I can continue to use P2P file sharing to get the songs I want. A large victory for Internet radio, a small but substantial victory for the rest of us.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

16.  Re: Substance or token?   by jimray       at Tue 8 Oct 7:58am score of 1   in reply to comment 4     This is a helluva point. Congress has demonstrated time and again that they're completely clueless about technology and technological issues. Which, unfortunately, means that we have to take we can get from our elected representatives. We're fighting an uphill battle against people with a lot more money and lot more political savvy. I think Cory Doctorow, of Boing Boing and EFF fame, has put the tech vs. hollywood battle very interestingly. Hollywood is a $40 billion a year industry. Tech is a $300 billion a year industry. Yet, Hollywood is slaying the tech giant and making all the rules! And it's not as if Hollywood is some noble David after the evil tech Goliath, more like Hollywood is a leeching virus using all means necessary to survive, even if it means killing the host. "You're not thinking, you're just being logical" Bohr to Einstein during a debate on quantum mechanics   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

5.  Wow.   by A. H. Cretin       at Tue 8 Oct 12:34am score of 1     I'm impressed that the RIAA saw the light. (Or more likely saw the death of a revenue stream, but I'm feeling charitable now that I can have music at work again.) In any case, I'll be glad to see net radio coming back to life... it's been awfully quiet at work lately. [Side note: the "broadcasters" link is quite munged; cut the leading http://www. to make it work properly.] -A Humorless Cretin   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

6.  All that needs to be said...   by CashCarSTAR       at Tue 8 Oct 3:33am score of 1     "Despite some last minute posturing by the RIAA to drop direct payments to artists, the bill passed the House unamended." That speaks for itself, I think. What is it you want to change?....We are the radio...   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

9.  slashdot   by wandie       at Tue 8 Oct 5:41am score of 1     "Woo! I'm not sure how this has been neglected over on that other site" Look again.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

11.  Have a little respect   by Petronius       at Tue 8 Oct 6:12am score of 1.5 astute     I'm glad this seems to be working out, even though I don't listen to Internet Radio. The RIAA may be finally seeing that their business model will have to change. However, I do think the technological community didn't do as well as they might have on their side of the process. Under our laws, the record companies have custody of the work. You may not like that, but we've been working under that assumption for the best part of a century. The idea that a sudden technological change gave us license to ignore that established process and take what they saw to be their property is absurd. The shock some people expressed at the very thought that the RIAA would assert their property rights is ridiculous. As soon as the argument was framed as us against them the fight was on. I think it could have been done much more easily if the technological community had had the maturity to approach the RIAA as potential partners rather than adversaries. The distribution and sale of music and other content is changing before our eyes. The RIAA will have a role, albeit a changed one. Trying to knock them off at once only prolongs the agony. I predict that in 10 years this whole controversy will seem a quaint as the episode in the 50's when Petrillo, head of the musician's union, suggested that performers be paid double for stereo records, since there were two tracks. What rescues us from insignificance is the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers. Carl Sagan   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

14.  It seems you haven't really been following el saga   by wah       at Tue 8 Oct 6:41am score of 1   in reply to comment 11     I think it could have been done much more easily if the technological community had had the maturity to approach the RIAA as potential partners rather than adversaries. That's pretty funny. Have you followed the actions and pronouncements of this group in the slightest over the last 4 years? It would seem that you haven't. There wasn't even the slightest bit of respect from the RIAA for any part of the technology circle. Until that respect is present, no negotiation is possible. Under our laws, the record companies have custody of the work. You may not like that, but we've been working under that assumption for the best part of a century. The idea that a sudden technological change gave us license to ignore that established process and take what they saw to be their property is absurd. It is not absurd in the slightest. It is these types of actions (blatant disregard for copyright associated with file-sharers) that are forcing the established industry to change their tactics. If this alternative, including Internet radio, didn't exist, they would simply have sat on their hands and continued to rip off an ignorant public. As it stands, the public knows there are improved alternatives in the market created by technological innovation. Industry can no longer be lazy. This is a great example of a free people expressing their freedom to the marketplace in the face of cumbersome legislative controls. -- A blog in the fine tradition of revolutionaries everywhere.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

13.  strange but beautiful   by timnet       at Tue 8 Oct 6:23am score of 1     Any time Congress and the RIAA are actually involved in something with an outcome that makes common sense, I need to make sure I didn't wake up in Bizarro World by mistake. But, assuming that didn't happen and the Senate consents, this is excellent news. For one thing, it's refreshing to see the RIAA drop their stormtrooper posing long enough to step back and actually negotiate something decent for the fans. For once. Maybe they are realizing they are not the alpha and the omega of the universe and that they may have to play nice with others for once? Despite some last minute posturing by the RIAA to drop direct payments to artists, the bill passed the House unamended. Alas, I couldn't find this in the articles, so I'm confused. Does this mean the RIAA was trying to keep artists from getting direct payment ... as in they wanted it to go through their slimy mitts instead? That would certainly show how loyal they are when they speak of ensuring artists receive their fair share. Maybe someone can enlighten me on that part of it. Still, I'll take any victory for fans of Web radio. Let freedom (or, at least, reduced copyright payments) ring. "I feel like I wouldn't like me if I met me." -- Tegan and Sara   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

15.  Re: strange but beautiful   by jimray       at Tue 8 Oct 7:38am score of 1   in reply to comment 13     Alas, I couldn't find this in the articles, so I'm confused. Does this mean the RIAA was trying to keep artists from getting direct payment ... Unfortunately, it wasn't printed in any of the mainstream news articles--I pulled that info off of somafm's homepage. According to the guys at soma, who apparently had a direct connection with the negotiations, the RIAA added a provision literally after the negotiation was over that struck out payments directly to artists. The greedy motherfuckers at the RIAA wanted to make sure they got theirs before paying artists. Fortunately, that proviso was thrown out before the vote. So, if you believe the folks at soma (true, they're not exactly impartial, but I got no reason to doubt them) then all the posturing by the RIAA about looking out for the artists was exactly that--posturing. They just wanted to continue to line their filthy pockets. Burn, you filthy bastards, burn. "You're not thinking, you're just being logical" Bohr to Einstein during a debate on quantum mechanics   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

18.  Yay.   by BatGuano       at Tue 8 Oct 8:30am score of 1     $2000 a year is probably still too much for the little station I'm on. We should take what we can get. But here's the deal -- why in the hell should a non-profit, non-commercial, educational station pay anything?!? We are a tool of promotion for the lables, that's why they keep sending us CDs. Of course stations like this don't promote the big acts, and tend to swing wildly to whatever's "hip" or "good" in the world of independent music. So this has nothing to do with "stealing music" -- the powerful would like to see the weedy world of independent broadcast and Web radio trimmed for marketing purposes. your radio friend, Bat Guano   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

19.  Yeehaw   by BabyDunes       at Mon 14 Oct 12:53pm score of 1     It's about time. Why is the RIAA always looking for money? First they complain about Napster, Morpheus, etc. because they're not receiving profits, and then this BS about not receiving royalties off Internet-streaming radio. At least the music is out there for us to listen to! Sites like this one were shut down because it was completely internet streamed. I know I live in a region where the radio stations suck. Why make me suffer listening to only available music on the radio?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

20.  It's just not fair...   by Beckygrrl       at Tue 12 Nov 1:17pm score of 1     I write, produce, and co-host Trans-Sister Radio, an Internet talk show for transgendered people which is streamed on Live-365. We don't play a lot of music, but we do play a few songs per show during our breaks. We don't make a dime in profit, and we pay the expenses entirely out of our own pockets...in fact, we had to go off the air for 5 months because we couldn't afford the expenses we already incur. Should Live-365 be unable to pay off the RIAA and go under, our show will go with it. Should it be determined that we personally are responsible for $2000 a year in potential royalties, we will go under since neither of us could afford such a financial burden. We do our show because we love doing it, and because we want to support our community...we're not, and will probably never be, a profitable commercial enterprise. We didn't create our show to make us rich, we created it to serve our community and fill a void in media coverage that had existed for far too long. We are hardly unique. Already, small non-profit broadcasters are going silent in droves because they know they'll never be able to pay what the RIAA is asking. This new royalty scheme is literally killing this new burgeoning industry before it's even had a chance to find it's legs. The RIAA is demanding a substantial part of our profits when there's still little, if any, income to even allow our shows to survive. Simply put, the greed of the RIAA and the record companies will snuff out the grassroots startups and make it so expensive to broadcast that soon only the very wealthy will be able to afford it. Those of us who do this because we love what we do will be shut out, and then only the big conglomerates will be left... This is the future of Internet radio, or the lack of a future. This is the epitaph of an industry that's being expected to run full tilt when it's barely learned to crawl. This is how big business, once again, knocks off the little guy. Those of you who think this new agreement will herald the return of the broadcasters who've already gone off the air are in a for quite a rude awakening. Doing an Internet radio show isn't just about stringing a bunch of mp3's together or turning on a mike and switching on a stream. It's a major commitment of time, money, and hard work. It often requires significant changes in one's life in order to pull it off. Many of those who've already done it and had to go off the air have moved on to other endevours...they will not be back. For every show that does return, there will be several more that will stay dead, never to return. In it's unrelenting quest to maximize profits, the RIAA is killing off the goose that hasn't even had the chance to lay a single golden egg yet. Should they continue, there will be virtually no profits for anyone. Instead of making money from what could soon become a healthy, revenue generating industry, they'll insure that those of us who've taken the first steps to bring Internet radio to the point to where there's finally at least the potential for profit will fade away, and with it, the chance to reach out to the audiences we've cultivated for their product with nothing but our own cash and sweat. It's only a matter of time now. We're dying, and the RIAA is killing us. As more and more webcasters find they can no longer afford to broadcast and disappear, we, our listeners, and the RIAA will find ourselves with exactly what we started with...nothing at all. Peace and Power, Becky   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

21.  Re: It's just not fair...   by A. H. Cretin       at Sat 7 Dec 6:22pm score of 1   in reply to comment 20     Thank you. You'd think I would have seen it; I'm cynical enough. A theory, slightly of the tinfoil-hat variety but one I think I believe: the RIAA puts out a request for soul-crushing fees, never expecting it to pass (in the long term), with this in the wings. It passes, then gets negotiated down to this. RIAA gets their revenue stream, the little guy gets crushed like a bug, RIAA's happy and screw everybody else. Dammit. -A Humorless Cretin   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]