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.
Oh REALLY? (Score:5, Funny)
Huh. Congress making deals with a known criminal organization. Who would have even thought that was possible?
what a choice (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
One's "illegal lobbying" (Score:2)
... 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".
Doing something illegal (like jaywalking) does not make one a criminal...
Re: (Score:1)
Unless you were just joking, in which case I don't get the humor, if it exists.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Re: (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 di
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
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 :-)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for the details.
However, can't you see, how dangerously slippery this slope is?
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
In a weird way, I hope that this fails (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And yet (Score:4, 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: (Score:2)
If you think everyone in Boston, which itself is only one friggin city in all of MA, sounds like that then your own ignorance of travel is showing. Yes, there's some pretty bad accents downtown, but on the whole it's a slight affectation of speech with softer 'R's and not a friggin new dialect. Should we judge all of NY state based on the atrocious accents of a few Long Islanders?
On a lighter note however, whenever out of towners bring up the famous phrase "pa
Re: (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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That is Mormon country. It is VERY conservative and they do not easily accept outsiders. Spend more than a few days there and you will see more.
Yes, and we have similar areas in the UK. Certain areas of Scotland and Wales are very insular. I spent 3 months in Utah, and got to know a few Mormons, and quite a few people who had moved there from out-of-state who shared their opinions on the contrasts between their own states and Utah.
NYC, is an amalgamation of MANY cultures. It really does not have just one. Move around to the boroughs and you will see huge differences.
This is equally true of London.
As to different outlook on life, California is the place for laid back, and fast all at the same time.
There is probably nowhere in the UK which has both of these extremes to such a degree.
The south (outside of cities) for a VERY slow pace in life.
The south-west of England, where I grew up, has a very similar pace of life.
I am saying that the states are as different as EU is. In fact, if you want a real difference in culture, try japan vs. England
I spent some time in
Re:In a weird way, I hope that this fails (Score:5, Informative)
In New York City you can't eat any food with trans fatty acids, and in Chicago (which is probably more than 3 hours, but throwing it out here as an example), it gets tricky trying to get fois gras. And violent video games? Well, you can't play Manhunt 2...it was supposed to be released last month.
And even if those aren't things you care about, well, it's only a matter of time before they attack something you do.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
eMusic (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:In a weird way, I hope that this fails (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:In a weird way, I hope that this fails (Score:5, Insightful)
(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.
I believe there is a way around this. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
What would/could SoundExchange sue for? Copyright infringement?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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
buffering (Score:2)
It's essentially one big ever changing torrent for all currently popular music relevant to your tastes, but using auto-deletion if you don't explicity save it and it goes out of style.. plus massive numbers of DJs sending out mixes via mixing instructions.
Re: (Score:2)
lol (Score:2)
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)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
See this comment [blogger.com] by SomaFM's Rusty Hodge on July 10th of this year, for more insight:
Re: (Score:2)
Same Issue With Microsoft (Score:1)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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".
Re:Cause and Effect (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
And that would be the other reason why music stations don't sue. You can't sue if you can't pay the lawyers.
Re: (Score:2)
Someone should point it out to Congress (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
10 percent of gross revenue under $250,000 (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
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
Re: (Score:1)
Assume that we don't regulate their royalty-collecting B.S.. What would happen? Let's consider the effect of the RIAA's webcasting royalty scheme:
1) Only those webcasting companies big enough to afford the ro
Re: (Score:2)
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
Because they're checking another branch of govt. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Reality of the situation (Score:1, Informative)
Fish? (Score:2)
Fine. Pay the royalties BUT.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Which part of the Constitution authorizes this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
(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.
Re: (Score:2)
"Necessary" and "proper" are of course open to debate, but you fail Civics if you think this isn't under Congress' Constitutional purview.
Why? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
What's needed here is a new metaphor (Score:2)
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
Fees WILL be imposed (Score:1)
I'm glad. (Score:2)