Hear hear...does anyone else think the RIAA might have gone too far this
time? The Napster case was just as big as this but a lot of people still
have the sneaking suspicion in the back of their minds that file-sharing is
wrong, I think.
Shutting down US Internet radio, though, and for no good reason, just seems
plain evil, an undisguised power play to extend the monopoly power of the
major labels further into cyberspace. Are we to be left with nothing to
listen to online but ClearChannel.com or other such crap?
It will be interesting to see what happens next. If anyone wants to know
more, check out
http://www.saveinternetradio.org/
Seems like it's already too late to stop this through Congress (unless a new
bill is passed which supercedes current law), looks like it's time for
guerilla action.
And how about a moment of silence for
http://www.somafm.com, I'm really
going through Drone Zone withdrawal this week...
Will other countries really follow the misguided lead of the US on this? If
not, it seems like all it will accomplish is to prevent Americans from
webcasting, while still allowing us to listen to stations in other
countries.
John
Digital Cutup Lounge
http://www.digitalcutuplounge.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "under the radar" <analog_life@hotmail.com>
To: <Mitch@DancingDNA.com>; <idm@hyperreal.org>; <microsound@hyperreal.org>;
<ambient@hyperreal.org>
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 2:00 PM
Subject: [microsound] Time to Pirate (was: Decision on Web radio reached)
quoted 2 lines Fuck the RIAA, do it yourself and post it up. It's really very simple. 75%
> Fuck the RIAA, do it yourself and post it up. It's really very simple. 75%
> of the music I'm into doesn't fall within the boundaries of RIAA
territory,
quoted 1 line and of those acts that do, I would be willing to take the risk to play
> and of those acts that do, I would be willing to take the risk to play
them
quoted 3 lines anyway.
> anyway.
>
> If this goes down without anyone doing this, then this "scene" is
worthless
quoted 108 lines and has far less backbone and integrity that anyone outside of this little
> and has far less backbone and integrity that anyone outside of this little
> world could have ever imagined.
>
> Stephen/Zygote
> http://www.undertheradar.net
>
> >From: Mitch Stargrove <Mitch@DancingDNA.com>
> >To: idm@hyperreal.org
> >Subject: [idm] fwd: Decision on Web radio reached
> >Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 22:02:04 -0700
> >
> >Decision on Web radio reached
> >
> >June 21, 2002 Posted: 9:22 AM EDT (1322 GMT)
> >------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >WASHINGTON (AP) -- Internet music broadcasters and the recording
> >industry, opponents in the debate over online music royalties, are
> >both unhappy with a government decision setting rates for webcasters.
> >
> >The U.S. Copyright Office decided Thursday to charge webcasters 70
> >cents per song heard by 1,000 listeners, or half of what a government
> >panel had proposed in February.
> >
> >John Potter, executive director of the Digital Media Association,
> >said the rate was still too high, but was an improvement over the
> >earlier proposal.
> >
> >"There's still going to be a lot of pain in the industry," said
> >Potter, who represents webcasters who send music programs over the
> >Internet to computer users.
> >
> >The recording industry had sought even higher royalties to compensate
> >artists and music labels for using their songs.
> >
> >The 70-cent rate "simply does not reflect the fair market value of
> >the music," said Cary Sherman, president of the Recording Industry
> >Association of America.
> >
> >In May, Librarian of Congress James H. Billington, who oversees the
> >Copyright Office, rejected an arbitration panel's proposal setting
> >the rate for Internet-only broadcasts at $1.40 per song heard by
> >1,000 listeners. That was double the rate set for broadcasts sent out
> >simultaneously on radio and the Internet.
> >
> >Billington thought the difference in the rates was "arbitrary and not
> >supported by the record of evidence," said spokeswoman Jill Brett.
> >The lower rate now applies to radio station simulcasts on the Web and
> >Internet-only broadcasts.
> >
> >Opponents of Thursday's ruling can appeal to the U.S. Court of
> >Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit within 30 days. The
> >court could modify the decision or set it aside if it finds the
> >ruling was highly unreasonable.
> >
> >If the decision is not changed, the first monthly royalty payments
> >will be due in November. The fees are retroactive to 1998 and full
> >payment of royalties from past years will be due in October.
> >
> >Internet radio -- either simulcasts of traditional over-the-air radio
> >or Internet-only stations streamed through the Internet to computers
> >-- is becoming more popular as people get high-speed connections at
> >home.
> >
> >Webcasters said the rates initially proposed were too high and would
> >cost larger Internet radio broadcasters hundreds of thousands of
> >dollars annually, more than they get from advertising or listener
> >contributions.
> >
> >John Jeffrey, vice president of Live365 Inc., the largest Internet
> >radio network, said even the lower rate may kill the fledgling
> >industry. He said it will cost his cash-strapped company about
> >$100,000 a month.
> >
> >"This is a rate that still means the majority of independent
> >webcasters will cease to operate," Jeffrey said.
> >
> >Webcasters like Live365, a network of about 30,000 radio stations
> >created by individual Internet users, wanted a rate based on a
> >percentage of revenue to pay performers and record labels.
> >Webcasters, like over-the-air radio stations, already use such an
> >arrangement to pay songwriters and composers.
> >
> >But the Copyright Office said that because many webcasters have such
> >small revenues, there would be little compensation for those who own
> >the copyrights to songs.
> >
> >Traditional radio broadcasters have been exempt from paying the
> >royalties for each song played -- the standard that is now being
> >applied to webcasters. Broadcasters successfully argued before
> >lawmakers that they already were promoting the music.
> >
> >After the recording industry failed to impose new royalties on
> >traditional broadcasters, the industry turned to webcasters and got
> >what it wanted with a 1998 law.
> >
> >Copyright 2002 The Associated Press.
> >
> >---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org
> >For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org
> >
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer atquoted 7 lines ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: microsound-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: microsound-help@hyperreal.org
> website: http://www.microsound.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org
For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org