Internet Radio's 'Second Chance' Bogging Down in House 105
An anonymous reader writes "Wired is reporting that the Internet Radio Equality Act is failing fast in the House, with negotiations breaking down over fair pricing for internet radio broadcasters. 'A legislative setback could make it harder to dislodge the new fees, which took effect last month after a federal appeals court refused to postpone the payment deadline. With the threat of congressional backlash fading, SoundExchange could find little incentive to budge from its current position ... SoundExchange has already proposed changes that could relieve small and custom-streaming sites from charges they could not possibly afford to pay, at least in the short term. Many expect a small-webcaster deal to be done by early September, when Congress goes back into session. But the deal on the table hasn't changed since SoundExchange extended an offer in May to charge them 10 percent of gross revenue under $250,000, or 12 percent of gross revenues over $250,000, with a revenue cap at $1.25 million.'" All very cushy for SoundExchange. Wired also points out that this is the same organization illegally lobbying for terrestrial radio royalties through 'third party' shell groups.
In a weird way, I hope that this fails (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:In a weird way, I hope that this fails (Score:3, Interesting)
Cause and Effect (Score:4, Interesting)
"Whether or not SoundExchange's lobbying efforts prove to be illegal, its presence as an advocate in this debate undercuts its role as neutral administrator of royalty fees set and approved by the Copyright Royalty Board."
The summary makes a *statement* that SoundExchange committed an illegal act. The article is less adamant concluding the SoundExchange should 'do the right thing'.
Huh?
Okay, this is slahsdot and summaries are not always concise about the cited article, but I would feel that given a case of braking the law, the Law, be that the US Attorneys General, a member of congress, or some other representative of the Law would take action. I personally feel that what is happening to online music is disgusting and agree that artists over time need to use the internet to get closer to their fans and potential audiences. That will not happen if bodies that control the money are not held accountable when they stray from the law.
Did they? Did they not?
It would seem, since no one is being taken to court on an illegal act, that they did not. That it were a civil issue why are music stations not suing for redress. Herer's a thought, if Wired thinks SoundExchange is breaking the law, report them to the law. Is that not what we do if we see a crime taking place? A lady is breaking into a car as I watch. I go over and ask, is this your car? "Um, I do own a car and this is a nice car" is the reply. I am suspicious so I what?
Write an article on how wrong it is to steal cars citing this lady as prime suspect...
or
report her ass to the law and let them figure it out.
For crying out loud...maybe journalism cannot file the report and instead they use the power of the pen to bring the issue to light. But if NO ONE takes action, either report on that (and ask why) or walk into a DA's office and demand that they be investigated.
(sigh)...I think I may make my sig "I hear the fiddle in the distance, and it is getting closer".
I believe there is a way around this. (Score:3, Interesting)
10 percent of gross revenue under $250,000 (Score:3, Interesting)
And yet (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:In a weird way, I hope that this fails (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:In a weird way, I hope that this fails (Score:3, Interesting)
In fact this won't kill internet radio, just current protocols. Instead we'll see superior p2p protocols where stations broadcast only torrent files and mixing instructions.
p2p radio has many advantages :
- near zero bandwidth cost for broadcasters because listeners pay both directions
- synchronous usage keeps bandwidth prices down
- stations can learn/feed off one another more easily
- time shifting and ripping music are easier
etc.
Why is Congress involved? (Score:5, Interesting)
First of all, Congress has NO power to set prices for any reason -- none. No government should ever set price caps or minimums. Doing so creates high prices and restricted inventories (or none at all). Let the market set pricing.
If the license-owners of music want to charge a given rate, let them. Those who can pay the rate will, those who can't will either move to different content, or pirate said content.
Here's where it gets exciting: piracy. With the huge number of people who want to transmit online, and the huge amount of countries and provinces to transmit from, it could be more expensive for the license-owners to go after someone streaming to 40 people than they'd get from the outcome. The amount of bandwidth on the web is virtually unlimited versus radio, and the reach is virtually unlimited. This means a virtually unlimited supply of music -- regardless of demand, the price will fall. If the license-owners think they can charge more than the market is willing to pay, they won't last long. The days of the power of copyright are quickly sliding through their fingers, into the open hands and mouths of those who want to spend their time providing a service that others want.
That service is NOT necessarily music, but a specific combination of music (and maybe commentary). It is THIS part of the service that the end users will pay for (either directly, or through advertising sponsorship). One specific song is NOT the important part, in fact it is the least important part. There are virtually unlimited songs to choose from, even in a given genre. There are NOT unlimited people who are talented in packaging these songs together into a format that someone else wants, and spend the same time marketing to the audience at large. The income is generated for the new labor created -- as the market should work. Old labor in the form of an easily copy-able song should fall to nearly zero. The bands who are played on these stations should be excited to get free marketing to promote their future concerts, personal appearances, or other live labor expenditures that they can sell in real time to their fans. Their labors, in real time, are worth way more than a pre-recorded, easily copied song worth zero or close to zero due to oversupply.
Get the tyrants in Congress out. These people have no understanding of the specific powers provided to them, by the People, through the Constitution. Congress does not have unlimited power.
Re:In a weird way, I hope that this fails (Score:3, Interesting)
The RIAA will get paid anyways from artists who originally refuse to participate in their monopoly on entertainment. It is the only way for the RIAA to keep a stranglehold on their abusive business model. (BTW, it is the same tactic being used by the MPAA to keep regular Joes from making quality movies and independantly producing and distributing them via the Internet - HDCP technologies are not anti-pirate technologies - they are anti-competitive technologies)
Why doesn't a US internet radio station just play non-RIAA affiliated music (artist approved free airplay) and not pay a single dime for the music played? Then challenge any legal action that may be brought against them? Take it all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary.
It would probably be overall cheaper then the freakin' fees anyways. If this law properly challenged as being anti-competitve/monopolistic maybe the courst can wipe it off the books.
Fine. Pay the royalties BUT.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:And yet (Score:4, Interesting)
Having lived in multiple parts of both, I can say that living in New England in the US most closely resembles living in a roughly single language version of Northern Europe. Architecture and cultural changes abound in relatively short distances. Once you move west out of NE and New York, it largely and quickly becomes large homogeneous areas. Communication in some can be difficult. I recall one time in Tennessee having to order by number because the counter help (definitely all locals, and quite possibly from the same small gene pool) could not speak in anything approaching an understandable dialect (similar to Cockney vs Scots, or Dutch vs Flemish).
I can also say that many of my co-workers in 2 places in Europe had never gone more than 15 miles from their birthplace. However, in all fairness, that 15 miles covered more than 3 major cities and multiple smaller towns, sometimes with great differences between them.
In Europe, you will also get a set of primary TV channels from all the surrounding countries, a really nice feature. Why US cable/satellite providers don't supply BBC, German, Spanish, and French direct feeds I'll never really understand, other than it interferes with the MAFIAA control over what is seen in the US.
Re:Why is Congress involved? (Score:2, Interesting)
It's obvious that those running the various media "AA's" aren't thinking more than a few moves ahead at this point - and why would they? There's too much money to be made by introducing weird, stupid royalty schemes on new technology.
Efforts to legislate them into sanity are just prolonging the inevitable collapse of their retarded house-of-cards money-grubbing.
Re:And yet (Score:3, Interesting)
I've visited Utah, New York (and some of the surrounding area), and Pennsylvania. They are certainly different, and if I were to wake up in any then I could quite quickly work out which it was without relying on maps or landmarks. The amount of cultural diversity I encountered, however, was about the same as I would get travelling across England. I realise I haven't been quite to opposite extremes. Going from central London to north Wales I find a cultural gradient at least as great as any found in the USA.
Travelling across Europe is at least an order of magnitude more varied. Even somewhere like France, which is far more anglicised than they would care to admit, is home to a very different culture with a completely different outlook on life. The north and south of France are as different as the north and south of England, but to a Brit like myself the differences to the UK that they both share are more apparent than the differences from each other. Trying to portray the EU as one homogeneous blob is so wrong it's laughable.
Re:10 percent of gross revenue under $250,000 (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:One's "illegal lobbying" (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, Slashdot is full of praise for organizations, that are similarly corrupt — such as Pirate Bay, for example. The difference? Pirate Bay are (alleged to be) breaking laws, that Slashdotters feel, should not exist.
I think, my first post on the subject made a good argument, why there should be no such thing as "illegal lobbying" — because the right "to petition the government for redress of grievances" is directly derived not only from "the spirit", but also from the letter of the very First Ammendment...
So, if the Ammendment can be construed to enshrine the right to, for example, sell pornography or to speak anonymously (both rather indirect derivations from the spirit of the Ammendment), any laws banning lobbying are flat-out un-Constitutional.
Re:One's "illegal lobbying" (Score:3, Interesting)
Furthermore, there are a lot of ways to look at lobbying. Petitioning for redress of grievances was never intended to apply to corporate entities, since at the time the Constitution was written corporations didn't have the rights of individuals. At least, that's my understanding, presumably someone with a legal background will correct me. Regardless, you can make your case that no lobbying should be considered "illegal", but the reality is that something has to be done because lobbying (illegal or otherwise) has resulted in serious imbalance between the rights of individuals vs. the rights of corporations in this country. Do you really believe that your Congressman will listen to your personal feelings on any issue? Of course not: the best they'll do is get a feeling for what their constituents want, and if that doesn't conflict with what their corporate sponsors want, you might get a good law.
My belief is that lobbying should be illegal, period. You want to write your Congressman and convince him of the merits of your position? Great, go for it. You want to wine him, and dine him, and give him free hookers and expensive vacations? Want to write him checks? Sorry
Re:lol (Score:3, Interesting)
That would imply that it only transmits data to some people. They need to transmit the data to other people, but there's no incentive for them to do so, because the other party would be unlikely to have data which the first party would want.
The only way there would be an incentive to share would be if you gave some people immediate data and some people data for.. say.. 30s from now. But, unless you have an extremely active swarm, you'd need a very large buffer (measured in time) to give data enough chance to propagate before everyone needs it.
It would also be even harder than it currently is in order to get people close to synchronized in terms of their playback position.
Then, you're going to want the system to be reasonably resistant to client disconnects. Certainly to a few clients, and, if you're trying to put "near" (either by network or geographical proximity) clients together, you're going to want to be resistant to if an entire block (say, a campus with a number of listeners) drops. If you have a persistent graph of who streams to who, you're going to need more time to readjust it; if you compute which pieces go where on a continuous basis (per BitTorrent) you'll also need more time, since there will be less predictability.
Once you get into a buffer window the size of a song, you no longer have Internet radio, you have "automated downloading of songs".