Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet Government United States Media Music Politics

Internet Radio's 'Second Chance' Bogging Down in House 105

Posted by Zonk
from the fish-in-a-barrel dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Internet Radio's 'Second Chance' Bogging Down in House

Comments Filter:
  • Oh REALLY? (Score:5, Funny)

    by ScrewMaster (602015) on Monday August 06, 2007 @07:16AM (#20128579)
    Wired also points out that this is the same organization illegally lobbying for terrestrial radio royalties through 'third party' shell groups.

    Huh. Congress making deals with a known criminal organization. Who would have even thought that was possible?
    • what a choice (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Swampash (1131503)
      Seems like our options are the Oil Industry Party or the Media Industry Party. Great.
    • ... is another's excercise of their First Ammendment right. And not only "in spirit" (such as the right to sell porn), but also in letter: "petition the government for redress of grievances".

      Huh. Congress making deals with a known criminal organization. Who would have even thought that was possible?

      Doing something illegal (like jaywalking) does not make one a criminal...

      • See that's exactly what it makes them, criminal is one who does crime, doing crime is doing something illegal.

        Unless you were just joking, in which case I don't get the humor, if it exists.
        • by mi (197448)

          See that's exactly what it makes them, criminal is one who does crime, doing crime is doing something illegal.

          Let me spell it out for you in detail... The write-up alleged, that the organization — SoundExchange — is illegally lobbying. From this the GGP [slashdot.org] — to a rather enthusiastic modding up — has concluded, that SoundExchange is a criminal organization.

          My comment explained, that many (most?) of the things illegal are not, in fact criminal. You see, criminal is the subset of illeg

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by ScrewMaster (602015)
            Well, actually that enthusiastic modding-up was mostly +n Funny, which indicates that the mods have more of a sense of humor than the rest of you over-analytical types. More to the point, however, Congress is making deals with a known corrupt organization (there, is that better?) ... but then again Congress itself has, since Colonial times, also been a known corrupt organization. Had it not been for the malfeasance of various members of Congress over the past century, copyright and patent law wouldn't be in
            • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

              by mi (197448)

              Congress is making deals with a known corrupt organization (there, is that better?)

              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 di

              • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

                by ScrewMaster (602015)
                Actually, no ... The Pirate Bay is breaking no laws it its country of origin, so that's really a bad example. Granted, they've moved their servers elsewhere and replicated them because they don't trust their lawmakers to have a backbone. Still, the fact that The Pirate Bay torques off the self-appointed copyright cops in the USA or anywhere else is irrelevant to any discussion on copyright. Furthermore, I've yet to read a single Slashdot comment seriously advocating the abolition of copyright, but what we d
                • Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)

                  by mi (197448)

                  The Pirate Bay is breaking no laws it its country of origin, so that's really a bad example.

                  So? They did break break America's laws, which is something Americans usually find reprehensible. And its not like all of your "pirating" friends are from abroad either :-)

                  Furthermore, I've yet to read a single Slashdot comment seriously advocating the abolition of copyright

                  Well, after the initial shock of somebody rejecting the obvious, I went searching. These [slashdot.org] two [slashdot.org] are what I found in 5 minutes of using Slashdot'

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by _Ludwig (86077)
        RTFA. Soundexchange is a nonprofit authorized by 17 USC 114 (g) (3) to collect royalties on behalf of sound recording copyright owners, on an opt-out basis. With that privilege come certain restrictions on how it may spend the royalties it collects. Hiring lobbying firms and PR flacks is not on the list of approved expenditures. This is no more a First Amendment violation than a Department of Defense contractor NDA is.
        • by mi (197448)

          Thanks for the details.

          However, can't you see, how dangerously slippery this slope is?

          With that privilege come certain restrictions on how it may spend the royalties it collects. Hiring lobbying firms and PR flacks is not on the list of approved expenditures.

          How about an IRS rule, that you are supposed to pay 10% higher tax, unless you are willing to accept certain limitations. Such as your right to petition the government...

          If this sounds far-fetched, it is not — there was no need to be registe

  • by WindBourne (631190) on Monday August 06, 2007 @07:17AM (#20128587) Journal
    Look, this issue is not going to go away unless either all musicans promise to go only through RIAA approved labels or the internet is killed. This is the time to take them on. Basically, musicians need to recognize that they have the opportunity to break free of the bonds that hold them. How? By getting paid directly by forming their own set of none-riaa labels. This monster price will force the network companies to no longer broadcast groups that support RIAA. That will of course cut the netplay to those groups/labels. Once they realize that this is hurting themselves, they will push for much lower prices. Hopefully, the network broadcasters AND their listeners will chose to let RIAA supported labels die.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Mathinker (909784)
      Another advantage, if it fails, is that Americans, or at least those who will listen to Internet radio, will be be exposed to more international influences (since the vast majority of Internet radio stations will be run in other countries). Assuming, of course, that there won't be some legislation requiring filtering Internet radio from abroad.
    • I wonder if eMusic would be in any position to collect/distribute royalties for the non-RIAA bands, sidestepping the RIAA and making it easier to get all the indie labels on at once.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Opportunist (166417)
        I don't know if that was such a good idea. You know that this is how the RIAA started, yes? As the royalty-collector for artists.
      • I think that's actually a great idea. I had previously thought of some sort of Creative Commons registry that indie artists could register with to explicitly grant permission for webcasting, but eMusic makes perfect sense. They've already got distribution agreements with their artists. They could even provide a revenue source for those artists - just set rates at half what the old SoundExchange rates were.
    • by couchslug (175151) on Monday August 06, 2007 @08:03AM (#20128741)
      "In a weird way, I hope that this fails"

      That isn't weird. I want to see the RIAA and anyone who supports them boycotted out of business. As long as these groups are able to make money they will survive.
    • by MadJo (674225) on Monday August 06, 2007 @08:12AM (#20128781) Homepage Journal
      The biggest problem is, that internet radio stations pay copyright fees to SoundExchange even if the artists have released their stuff under a creative commons licence. Or even if said artist is not associated with SoundExchange or the RIAA.
      (Article [dailykos.com] on the DailyKos on this subject)

      Which ever way you look at it, it's a lose-lose situation for internet radio, if the fees will go in effect.
      • Create a "label" company that the artists get stock in. Then have the streamcasters that are using the OSS, none RIAA stuff give up 1 share of their stock to said company. As such, the "label" company has the right to allow their music to be played since it is part of their company. I have seen several ppl here say that would not work, but I think that it will. In particular, since when do the feds require payments to self from a company that is owned by self? I believe that the only reason why money flows
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by bilabrin (1127623)
        Yeah, I thought I remebered reading that. Okay, so now what we need is a station like Indie Airplay (all indie music) to get hurt by this (to establish standing) or for SoundExchange to go after them so that they get it into court for a challenge. Seriously, why should RIAA make $$$ off of someone elses product? This part is absurd and should be challenged.
        • by Lockejaw (955650)
          So... serious question here...
          What would/could SoundExchange sue for? Copyright infringement?
        • But who decides whether or not the case actually goes to court? What if SoundExchange, wanting to preserve their RIAA song revenues, do not accept the gambit and looks the other way, so long as the station does not move in on their RIAA property royalties collections? They may not want to risk an unfavorable judgment in court for the sake of collecting a few bit payments on indie stations playing creative commons licensed songs.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Weezul (52464)
        Yes and no, you'd have a very stronge case for not paying them, but you'd need good lawyers if they sued you.. maybe SoundExchange vs. Magnatune.

        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
        • by jesboat (64736)
          How exactly do you plan to use a p2p system for distributing a stream, without a ridiculously large buffer and/or timing oddities on the clients?
          • by Weezul (52464)
            You obviously want a ridiculously large "buffer"!!! Indeed listeners should be able to permanently save music hours after listening. And other stations should be able to piggy back on your listeners. 5-10gig maybe?

            You might also create a flexible format which allowed "bit skipping" for mindless bitrate degradation, i.e. you could listen to the low bit rate version of the p2p, but any songs you marked to save are bumped up to the full bitrate torrent, and the data you already have is still useful.
            • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

              by jesboat (64736)
              That's a buffer in the wrong direction. My point is that the main use of a p2p system would be that the main server doesn't need to transmit the latest streaming content to everyone.

              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 immedi
              • by Weezul (52464)
                Geez, your going on & on about tons of total non-issues. Yes, I know you'll need a huge buffer in the forward direction, that goes without saying. duh! The point is "automated downloading of songs" is just better than streaming. Lets say 2 gigs (1 day) forward and 8 gigs (4 days) backwards?

                If it helps you wrap yout head around the idea, don't view it as traditional radio, view it as "distributed DJing." A DJ says "here's the stuff I'm playing today & tomarrow", your computer downoads it, and pl
                • by jesboat (64736)
                  Geez, your going on & on about tons of total non-issues. The point is "automated downloading of songs" is just better than streaming.

                  Please don't assume everyone has the same preferences as you do.

                  I, personally, a perfectly fine with Internet radio as-is, and I'd rather fill my hard drive with other things. If I wanted to download songs, I'm perfectly capable of downloading them myself; I listen to Internet radio because I want a mix of songs delivered to me without the space or time overhead required
                  • by Weezul (52464)
                    I, personally, a perfectly fine with Internet radio as-is, and I'd rather fill my hard drive with other things. If I wanted to download songs, I'm perfectly capable of downloading them myself; I listen to Internet radio because I want a mix of songs delivered to me without the space or time overhead required to maintain a large collection.

                    Yes, this exactly what people want! And this is exactly what's provided by automated downloading and deleting of songs coupled with semi-live mixing instructions broadcas
                    • by jesboat (64736)
                      And this is exactly what's provided by automated downloading and deleting of songs coupled with semi-live mixing instructions broadcast by stations.

                      Except that (according to you), that would require a buffer whose size was measured in gigabytes instead of in kilobytes.

                      This will be my last reply.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by wirehead_rick (308391)
        And this is THE HEART of the issue.

        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
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        I think you and the site you link to misunderstands the meaning of the term "compulsory license [wikipedia.org]". It isn't compulsory for the radio station, it is compulsory for the artist. Meaning the artist has no choice but to grant a license through SoundExchange. However the artist can grant other licenses and the radio station is free to accept or reject any of them. The compulsory license isn't compulsory for the licensor to accept, it is compulsory for the artists to grant. If artist and licensor can agree upon som
        • While it's not covered in the linked article, I recall reading from a different article that the situation was more subtle. There are two simple situations:
          • Use the compulsory license mechanism for all the music you play, and pay the fees to SoundExchange.
          • Enter into private agreements with all of the copyright owners, and pay them all directly.

          The problem comes when you want to mix and match. If you play even one song using the compulsory license, you have to pay SoundExchange for all of the music you

        • by MadJo (674225)
          You'd better tell that to the stations that pay that compulsory license. I'm sure they'd love to stop paying it.

          See this comment [blogger.com] by SomaFM's Rusty Hodge on July 10th of this year, for more insight:

          ``What's the big deal? The RIAA can't tax what they don't own.``

          Yes they can. They got provisions put into the DMCA that allow them to collect (and in theory, distribute) royalties on all music played over internet radio. In theory, we can make licensing deals with every independen

    • Rather, I'd guess the mafiaa would push for legislation to force every net radio broadcaster to pay the mafiaa tax, no matter whether they play music "owned" by them or not. And afaik, that already happened.
    • A lot of people say, "Oh, if this goes through, allowing the (essential) monopoly, then people will be motivated to go for competitive alternatives - such as independent labels." The difficulty there is the exact same thing that is plaguing the operating system industry - Microsoft and the RIAA both have no incentive to change because they're currently holding (nearly) all the cards. Let me explain:

      Artists with successful songs right now, or software with successful followings, are tied to the RIAA/Microso

    • by halr9000 (465474)
      I agree with you, but I'm a bit more cynical about it. What you are saying is that market forces will prevail. I'm about as pro-capitalist as you can get, so I support this stance for sure. But in this case we are not talking about a tangible asset with limited supply. We're talking about recorded soundwaves which are licensed like intellectual property. Toss in a huge entrenched industry with expensive lobbyists which want to pay to ensure government protects their business model and well--I trust Con
  • Cause and Effect (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Bucc5062 (856482) <bucc5062.gmail@com> on Monday August 06, 2007 @08:10AM (#20128773)
    FTA:

    "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".
     
    • by morgan_greywolf (835522) on Monday August 06, 2007 @08:31AM (#20128883) Homepage Journal

      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?


      It's not that simple. If SoundExchange is violating the law, it is probably a civil matter and not a criminal matter. Law enforcement doesn't do anything and is not responsible for enforcing civil law, only criminal law.

      If they are violating civil law, well, as for why music stations aren't suing...well, people with a legitimate legal beef don't always sue. There are plenty of reasons why they don't.

      Look at this way: Microsoft violated the law with its Windows licensing scheme, right? I mean, a federal circuit court judge even said so, right? So why didn't the OEMs, who were harmed by this illegal licensing scheme, sue Microsoft? Mostly economic reasons. They didn't want to fight Microsoft's army of lawyers, sure, but they also didn't want Microsoft to cut them off from Windows and Office licenses.

      I suspect there are similar reasons why music stations aren't suing SoundExchange.

      • It's called people doing music stations because they want to. They don't have the financial backing to do it. I'm sure many would love to take them on, but you have to be careful. If you lose your case, you set a precedent for anyone after you that they have to fight though before they can even get to their case.
        • They don't have the financial backing to do it.


          And that would be the other reason why music stations don't sue. You can't sue if you can't pay the lawyers.
      • by AndersOSU (873247)
        I'm with you on the bit about civil law, but would it even be possible for sound exchange to cut off someone who sued them? Don't they make their money on compulsory licenses? IANAL, obviously, but I would think as long as you offer to pay sound exchange they have to let you play their songs.
  • by Opportunist (166417) on Monday August 06, 2007 @08:12AM (#20128791)
    People listening to internet radio will not simply stop to do that and turn back to old fashion radio if internet radio is being made impossible in the US. Rather, they'll tune in to other stations abroad. With internet radio, this is hardly a problem.

    The difference is that this makes it quite a bit harder for Congress (or any organisation within the US) to take influence in the broadcast and avoid or at least monitor less desired broadcasts to happen. I mean, think of the propaganda ability of a net based radio that plays what its listeners want to hear. All you have to do is call your spin news and broadcast it once an hour, and between those news, just broadcast the latest and greatest hits.

    Now imagine this radio station somewhere in the middle east.
    • First step: destroy US-based netcasters.
      Second step: once there's nobody local with a financial stake, try and ban netcasting entirely -- filter the whole Internet with some fancy new Congress-approved, poorly-functional software.
      Sure, encrypted streams might work, but who is going to bother with that? This is the same general progression we watched with mp3's and sharing -- companies, that have interest in quality, provide a central service; their business is outlawed; the service moves to anonymous suppl
    • by juniorbird (74686)
      You've got it exactly right -- people listening to internet radio won't just stop and go back to old-fashioned radio. So what's left now? Nothing legal, that's for sure. The music source may not be something as frightening as al Quaeda, but Shawn Fanning kept a lot of people up at night too, for a while.
      • Needn't be Al Quaida. There are plenty of anti-US groups around the globe, each with its own agenda. Think it would be difficult for any of them to set up a "news network"? Well, already happened, but so far I think none of them got the idea of mixing it with music to attract listeners.

        What's really scary about the idea is that the good ol' saying "the prophet ain't honored in his own lands" comes to new fruits here. It reminds me of eastern Europe, where it was forbidden to listen to "west radio", and peop
  • As if the U.S. Congress, arguably the most powerful legislative body in the world, didn't have enough stuff to do, now they're actually hearing the whining from the MAFIAA! Only in America my friends...
  • by razpones (1077227) on Monday August 06, 2007 @08:46AM (#20128985) Journal
    So if I happened to have an internet radio station that does not make any money, then 10% is 0, correct?, now, what if am an artist and I broadcast my own music on this station, do I have to pay this people to transmit my own work?, that sounds like MAFIAA tactics to me.
  • by dada21 (163177) <adam.dada@gmail.com> on Monday August 06, 2007 @09:58AM (#20129499) Homepage Journal
    This makes no sense. For this post, I won't actually fight against copyright. Let us all agree that copyright exists, and that there are current penalties for violating it.

    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.
    • by Dusty00 (1106595)
      Generally you're right in that there's are negative effects to setting artificial legal parameters for pricing, a free market will of course establish the optimal price. What will always derail the desired effects of a free market is a monopoly with the RIAA definitely has. The amount of royalties they are asking for isn't determined by what they feel the market values of those royalties are, they are designed to put the internet broadcaster out of business, plain and simple.
      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by baboo_jackal (1021741)

        What will always derail the desired effects of a free market is a monopoly with the RIAA definitely has.

        I don't think the answer to this is legislation. Eventually, the current business model for the music industry will have to undergo a dramatic shift, or even a catastrophic collapse.

        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 th

    • by wytcld (179112)

      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.

      Congress is involved because laws passed by Congress establish (1) that Net radio can be charged these fees, and (2) that over-the-air radio cannot be charged these fees. This isn't on the level of setting pricing, but on the level of whether there's to be any price at all. This is

    • Congress is involved now because Congress has been involved...well, practically forever. The Copyright Royalty Board, as part of the Library of Congress, and as authorized by the Copyright Royalty and Distribution Reform Act of 2004, sets the statutory licenses and fees on copyrighted material. So, no, Congress has no power to set prices, but they do have the constitutional power to set fees and royalties. For example, "fair use" of copyrighted material is set by Congress.
    • Congress got involved at the start when they granted a government-enforced monopoly via copyright. Back when pianolas were new, they attempted to reign in the power of copyright somewhat, by creating the idea of a compulsory license. The creator of a piece of music was allowed to set any fee they wanted, but if the buyer didn't want to pay it then they also had the option of paying the compulsory license fee.

      This effectively set a maximum prize. Something of this nature is needed when you are granting

  • by Anonymous Coward
    From the beginning a legislative solution was unlikely because the issue was under the jurisdiction of the judiciary committee in the house, and the chairman of the subcommittee it was referred to was Howard Berman. Berman is a copyright warrior, with little or no sympathy for the arguments of the internet radio broadcasters. The Inslee bill in the house(Internet Radio Equality Act) has little or no chance of going anywhere, particularly now that Congress has entered its August recess. However, there is
  • by wik (10258)
    What does this have to do with fish in a barrel? I just don't get it, zonk.
  • by DrRobert (179090) * <rgbuice@maAUDENc.com minus poet> on Monday August 06, 2007 @10:33AM (#20129805) Homepage
    ... only play music that is more than five years old. If the music industry wants newer material... (the records they want to sell) played on the radio then charge them the standard ad rate. I have bought 50 CDs in the last two months that I would never have bought if I hadn't heard them on the radio. I don't think the mainstream commercial record industry can exist without radio play.
  • by j1mmy (43634) on Monday August 06, 2007 @10:45AM (#20129957) Journal
    I wasn't aware that regulating media licensing fees was one of the powers enumerated in Article 1, Section 8.
    • Probably no part, of course. If this question was asked all the time, very few laws would be passed.

      (A few years ago some Republican congressman introduced a bill to force Congress to cite the article & section giving authorization for any law they passed. Needless to say this did not get far.)

      The last refuge of legislative scoundrels is the Commerce Clause [wikipedia.org]. This clause is used and abused so often, it might be time to amend the Constitution to remove it.
    • by _Ludwig (86077)
      It's part and parcel of "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers," one of said Powers being "securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

      "Necessary" and "proper" are of course open to debate, but you fail Civics if you think this isn't under Congress' Constitutional purview.

  • by D$ntas (1139021)
    What? Sorry about my english, but let me explain my ideas. I write a music, I record it, I pay MY internet connection and MY computer, using linux, everything free or made by myself, and I still have to pay SoundExchange? WHY? There is no logic, they just want to steal my money. Again, sorry about my english.
  • An interesting argument here is that it's just a language problem. We have another case of clueless politicians not understanding some new technology, and trying to handle it by treating a faulty metaphor as reality.

    Consider: Some months ago, a friend tipped me off to pandora.com, and I experimented with it a bit. What they do is let you generate play mixes by telling that what music tracks you like (or don't like), and they "broadcast" a semi-random program of music that matches your likes. I tweaked i
  • For one reason and one reason only. The majority of Dems are in Hollywood's pockets. The corruption in the all 3 branches of Government are unreal at this point. The next President likley to be a democrat will ALSO be in Hollywood's pocket (RIAA, MPAA, etc) Obama and Hillary are one of the likley 2 and both have gotten significant contributions from Hollywood. So expect more of this. Hollywood is getting bold because they know they have the elections bought and paid for it is fairly certain they have also
  • There are tonnes more things to care about, like you know CONGRESS passing the new FISA bullshit.

FORTRAN is a good example of a language which is easier to parse using ad hoc techniques. -- D. Gries [What's good about it? Ed.]

Working...