Diamond45
Terminate Bad Music
I doubt that will happen. But if so, I can easily record records onto my computer (probably the only one on my block with a working turntable).
You a fan of internet radio? do you webcast? You should read this
- Thread starter nailz
- Start date
I doubt that will happen. But if so, I can easily record records onto my computer (probably the only one on my block with a working turntable).
But, unless you had the master copy, the copy off the vinyl record usually will be not as good as the album. That is why copying and the tape networks were tolerated back in the day. The bands got free promotion, and the quality was such that if you wanted to listen to a cleaner version of that album, you had to buy the album. Hell, the tape networks is how I got into Rush, Maiden and Armored Saint.
Peace,
Ray C.
So, if I do not like a CD, can I return it for a refund? I mean, let's be real here. If I BUY something, it becomes MINE. So, if I BUY a CD, then since that CD is MINE, I can do anything I wish with it INCLUDING selling it. If, as you say, the recording after I BUY it is not mine, then I am only RENTING or LEASING it, then I can return it at any time.
I think you need to stop wearing the blinders that the plantation owners at the RIAA are making you wear.
BTW, the Wall Street Journal also ripped the decision: http://www.kurthanson.com/archive/news/031207/index.shtml
Enjoy!
Enjoy!
SeaStorm
Member
You own the phsyical copy, not the intellectual property rights. Sure you can sell the CD, you own it (you're not renting or leasing). What you can't do (legally) is distribute it to others. The author still owns the intellectual property rights to his work; you did not purchase the intellectual property rights to the underlying work.
It's not about what the RIAA says (blinders), it's copyright law. It's been that way since the beginning in this country. The Net provides new challenges and forces adaptation, but it doesn't change the law.
DAVETHEMETALGUY
Member
NPR Takes First Step To Reverse Internet Royalty Rate Decision
March 15, 2007
After the Copyright Royalty Board (CRB) decided to drastically increase the royalties paid to musicians and record labels for streaming songs online, National Public Radio (NPR) will begin fighting the decision on Friday, March 16 by filing a petition for reconsideration with the CRB panel. The suggested new rates would increase to $.0008 per-play for 2006 (retroactively), $.0011 for 2007, $.0014 in 2008, $.0018 in 2009 and $.0019 for 2010, which could put some Internet broadcasters out of business and force public radio stations to quit streaming online.
"This is a stunning, damaging decision for public radio and its commitment to music discovery and education, which has been part of our tradition for more than half a century," said NPR's VP of Communications Andi Sporkin. "Public radio�s agreements on royalties with all such organizations, including the RIAA, have always taken into account our public service mission and non-profit status. These new rates, at least 20 times more than what stations have paid in the past, treat us as if we were commercial radio � although by its nature, public radio cannot increase revenue from more listeners or more content, the factors that set this new rate. Also, we are being required to pay an internet royalty fee that is vastly more expensive than what we pay for over-the-air use of music, although for a fraction of the over-the-air audience."
Public radio station WXPN/Philadelphia sent out an e-mail to its members explaining that, "With three distinct streams of our own (WXPN, Y-Rock On XPN, XPoNential Music), XPN is doing all we can to ensure that the fees our public radio colleagues and we pay for playing music over the Internet remain fair to both the stations and the performers. By our estimates, WXPN could be paying about $1 million a year in royalties under the CRB's ruling. That could mean the end of streaming."
There also has been a Web site set up, SaveTheStream.org, where supporters can sign a petition to Congress asking them to help the Internet radio industry, and also leave comments about why Internet radio is important and how listening to it affects their music purchasing habits. The site also includes press coverage and FAQs about the issue.
Sporkin concluded, "This decision penalizes public radio stations for fulfilling their mandate, it penalizes emerging and non-mainstream musical artists who have always relied on public radio for visibility and ultimately it penalizes the American public, whose local station memberships and taxes will be necessary to cover the millions of dollars that will now be required as payment. On behalf of the public radio system, NPR will pursue all possible action to reverse this decision, which threatens to severely reduce local stations� public service and limit the reach of the entire music community. NPR will begin on Friday, March 16 by filing a petition for reconsideration with the CRB panel, the first step in this process. We ask that the online royalties be returned to their historic arrangement and that public radio can continue to provide its vital service to music discovery.�
March 15, 2007
After the Copyright Royalty Board (CRB) decided to drastically increase the royalties paid to musicians and record labels for streaming songs online, National Public Radio (NPR) will begin fighting the decision on Friday, March 16 by filing a petition for reconsideration with the CRB panel. The suggested new rates would increase to $.0008 per-play for 2006 (retroactively), $.0011 for 2007, $.0014 in 2008, $.0018 in 2009 and $.0019 for 2010, which could put some Internet broadcasters out of business and force public radio stations to quit streaming online.
"This is a stunning, damaging decision for public radio and its commitment to music discovery and education, which has been part of our tradition for more than half a century," said NPR's VP of Communications Andi Sporkin. "Public radio�s agreements on royalties with all such organizations, including the RIAA, have always taken into account our public service mission and non-profit status. These new rates, at least 20 times more than what stations have paid in the past, treat us as if we were commercial radio � although by its nature, public radio cannot increase revenue from more listeners or more content, the factors that set this new rate. Also, we are being required to pay an internet royalty fee that is vastly more expensive than what we pay for over-the-air use of music, although for a fraction of the over-the-air audience."
Public radio station WXPN/Philadelphia sent out an e-mail to its members explaining that, "With three distinct streams of our own (WXPN, Y-Rock On XPN, XPoNential Music), XPN is doing all we can to ensure that the fees our public radio colleagues and we pay for playing music over the Internet remain fair to both the stations and the performers. By our estimates, WXPN could be paying about $1 million a year in royalties under the CRB's ruling. That could mean the end of streaming."
There also has been a Web site set up, SaveTheStream.org, where supporters can sign a petition to Congress asking them to help the Internet radio industry, and also leave comments about why Internet radio is important and how listening to it affects their music purchasing habits. The site also includes press coverage and FAQs about the issue.
Sporkin concluded, "This decision penalizes public radio stations for fulfilling their mandate, it penalizes emerging and non-mainstream musical artists who have always relied on public radio for visibility and ultimately it penalizes the American public, whose local station memberships and taxes will be necessary to cover the millions of dollars that will now be required as payment. On behalf of the public radio system, NPR will pursue all possible action to reverse this decision, which threatens to severely reduce local stations� public service and limit the reach of the entire music community. NPR will begin on Friday, March 16 by filing a petition for reconsideration with the CRB panel, the first step in this process. We ask that the online royalties be returned to their historic arrangement and that public radio can continue to provide its vital service to music discovery.�
SeaStorm
Member
It think it's good to note that there are A LOT of ways this gets undone. Aside from NPR petitioning the Copyright Royalty Board for reconsideration, I read a list of other possible ways in one of the news articles: legal appeal, Congressional action, or "SoundExchange could choose to continue licensing music as a share of revenue, as it did before the Copyright Royalty Board decision".
DAVETHEMETALGUY
Member
i read this today....newsweek i think
A Fee Per Song Can Ruin Us, Internet Radio Companies Say
By ROBERT LEVINE
Published: March 19, 2007
New-media companies and record labels are feuding again. But this time, it is the digital companies that warn they may be driven out of business.
Several Internet radio companies are arguing that a recent decision by the Copyright Royalty Board, a three-member panel under the Library of Congress, would make it almost impossible for them to stay afloat.
Under the ruling released on March 2, Web broadcasters must pay each time a listener hears a song, at a rate that began at 0.08 cent in 2006 (the ruling applies retroactively) and rises to 0.19 cent in 2010. Besides increasing the charge for each song, the ruling established a $500 minimum payment for each Web channel — making it difficult for companies like RealNetworks and Pandora to offer as many different kinds of music as they do now.
“We would have to provide less choice and less diverse programming,” said Robert Kimball, senior vice president for business and legal affairs at RealNetworks.
In the last few years, as broadband Internet connections became more popular, online radio offerings have proliferated. On Wednesday, Mr. Kimball testified to the House Commerce subcommittee on telecommunications and the Internet that online radio played a greater variety of music, but that it was unfairly limited by restrictions that did not apply to conventional radio stations.
As the recording industry sees the matter, though, Web-based broadcasters are simply building a business with their content, which they deserve to be compensated for.
“They said the same thing in 2002,” the last time such fees were set, said John L. Simson, executive director of SoundExchange, the group that collects royalties from online radio and distributes them to labels and artists. “Not only did it not drive them out of business, we saw more people come online.”
Companies that operate Internet radio channels are expected to ask the Copyright Royalty Board to reconsider the case.
Internet radio royalties have become a thorny issue in part because conventional stations do not pay to use recordings. Both online and regular stations pay royalties to songwriters. But under a 1995 law, companies that transmit music using the Internet, cable or satellite must compensate both. The money is split between the owner of the recording, usually the label, and the performers.
Until the end of 2005, Internet stations could pay royalties based on either the number of songs they played or the number of hours listeners tuned in, and small companies had the option of giving SoundExchange about 12 percent of their revenue.
For some Internet radio operations, the new royalty obligations would exceed annual revenue. Kurt Hanson, who publishes a newsletter and runs AccuRadio, a site with 320 channels, said he took in $400,000 in 2006, almost all of it from advertising. He estimated that under the new payment structure, he would have owed $600,000 for the year.
The $500 minimum for each channel is among the ruling’s more difficult aspects. Many Web radio sites offer thousands of channels, a strategy that would be impossible with this rate structure. AccuRadio, for example, offers one channel that consists entirely of classical oboe music.
“Among oboe players, it’s very popular,” Mr. Hanson remarked.
There is a question whether that minimum fee would be applied to each channel on sites like Pandora, which offers users personalized music streams. “But no one has a viable business at the new rate, regardless of what happens to the $500 fee,” Pandora’s chief executive, Joe Kennedy, said.
Many involved in Internet radio contend that the Copyright Royalty Board members do not understand the technology. At one point in the proceedings, according to the transcript, one member asked if the term “albums” could refer to CDs as well as vinyl records.
Internet radio operators also say it would not be in the interest of labels to stifle a business that is paying them fees to use their music, especially at a time of declining CD sales.
“That’s counterproductive to the copyright holders,” said Terry McBride, chief executive of the Nettwerk Music Group, a label and artist-management company, adding that the ruling could be bad for performers whose music would not be played on conventional radio.
The decision comes as sites like Pandora are only beginning to explore the possibilities of personalized online radio, said Mike McGuire, a research vice president at Gartner. “One hopes the mind-set will be that nobody wants to see anybody go out of business,” he said.
A Fee Per Song Can Ruin Us, Internet Radio Companies Say
By ROBERT LEVINE
Published: March 19, 2007
New-media companies and record labels are feuding again. But this time, it is the digital companies that warn they may be driven out of business.
Several Internet radio companies are arguing that a recent decision by the Copyright Royalty Board, a three-member panel under the Library of Congress, would make it almost impossible for them to stay afloat.
Under the ruling released on March 2, Web broadcasters must pay each time a listener hears a song, at a rate that began at 0.08 cent in 2006 (the ruling applies retroactively) and rises to 0.19 cent in 2010. Besides increasing the charge for each song, the ruling established a $500 minimum payment for each Web channel — making it difficult for companies like RealNetworks and Pandora to offer as many different kinds of music as they do now.
“We would have to provide less choice and less diverse programming,” said Robert Kimball, senior vice president for business and legal affairs at RealNetworks.
In the last few years, as broadband Internet connections became more popular, online radio offerings have proliferated. On Wednesday, Mr. Kimball testified to the House Commerce subcommittee on telecommunications and the Internet that online radio played a greater variety of music, but that it was unfairly limited by restrictions that did not apply to conventional radio stations.
As the recording industry sees the matter, though, Web-based broadcasters are simply building a business with their content, which they deserve to be compensated for.
“They said the same thing in 2002,” the last time such fees were set, said John L. Simson, executive director of SoundExchange, the group that collects royalties from online radio and distributes them to labels and artists. “Not only did it not drive them out of business, we saw more people come online.”
Companies that operate Internet radio channels are expected to ask the Copyright Royalty Board to reconsider the case.
Internet radio royalties have become a thorny issue in part because conventional stations do not pay to use recordings. Both online and regular stations pay royalties to songwriters. But under a 1995 law, companies that transmit music using the Internet, cable or satellite must compensate both. The money is split between the owner of the recording, usually the label, and the performers.
Until the end of 2005, Internet stations could pay royalties based on either the number of songs they played or the number of hours listeners tuned in, and small companies had the option of giving SoundExchange about 12 percent of their revenue.
For some Internet radio operations, the new royalty obligations would exceed annual revenue. Kurt Hanson, who publishes a newsletter and runs AccuRadio, a site with 320 channels, said he took in $400,000 in 2006, almost all of it from advertising. He estimated that under the new payment structure, he would have owed $600,000 for the year.
The $500 minimum for each channel is among the ruling’s more difficult aspects. Many Web radio sites offer thousands of channels, a strategy that would be impossible with this rate structure. AccuRadio, for example, offers one channel that consists entirely of classical oboe music.
“Among oboe players, it’s very popular,” Mr. Hanson remarked.
There is a question whether that minimum fee would be applied to each channel on sites like Pandora, which offers users personalized music streams. “But no one has a viable business at the new rate, regardless of what happens to the $500 fee,” Pandora’s chief executive, Joe Kennedy, said.
Many involved in Internet radio contend that the Copyright Royalty Board members do not understand the technology. At one point in the proceedings, according to the transcript, one member asked if the term “albums” could refer to CDs as well as vinyl records.
Internet radio operators also say it would not be in the interest of labels to stifle a business that is paying them fees to use their music, especially at a time of declining CD sales.
“That’s counterproductive to the copyright holders,” said Terry McBride, chief executive of the Nettwerk Music Group, a label and artist-management company, adding that the ruling could be bad for performers whose music would not be played on conventional radio.
The decision comes as sites like Pandora are only beginning to explore the possibilities of personalized online radio, said Mike McGuire, a research vice president at Gartner. “One hopes the mind-set will be that nobody wants to see anybody go out of business,” he said.
MEGALOUD
The Nightmare Has Begun..
YES, this is of course true, however, there is another side to this equation as well, with internet radio many labels, and artists are asked to sign a waiver form that allows the internet radio station to play their music, without compensation, this is of course great for the smaller labels and artists because it brings their music to some peoples ears that would never have heard them in hopes of selling some through the links provided to sites like Amazon and others that offer the webstation "affiliation fees" or kickbacks on these click throughs and sales. These kickbacks help to keep the station running because they don't sell advertising, and the artists/label sell some discs and make a bit of money on this. These are VERY small amounts we're talking about... because let's face it, internet radio just doesn't have that many listeners for the most part, with the exception of just a few sites that do pretty well traffic wise. Most are only getting a total of perhaps a couple of hundred listeners.
If these stations are now expected to pay these fee's, they will need to close shop, or sell advertising or cave to corporate payola (which just won't happen because they don't have a good enough market share).
So in essence, the RIAA is trying to make it all even, BUT in doing so, they really are just limiting again the choices that listeners are given, and limiting the independent artists and smaller labels a venue with which to have their music played.
I as a musician, and small label owner, very much appreciate internet radio,
they have helped me to market great new music that few would hear on syndicated stations that are owned by the big 4 broadcasting companies out there that are pushing the same swill down our throats day in and day out, because they make money doing it....the big labels pay to have their bands played, this is why you hear it over and over and over again and every band sounds like the next one, same regurgitated melodies, same production, same riffs, different key, it's boring, I can't stand corporate radio anymore,
and I used to love the radio, long ago and far away, there were tunes that actually were good there, like there are now on internet radio.
I support internet radio in this fight, if the artists and the labels are willing to give them the go ahead to play their "Intellectual property" aka songs, then who the hell is the RIAA to say it's not right?
Just my two cents.
DAVETHEMETALGUY
Member
Musicians Speak Out In Favor Of New Royalty Rates
March 26, 2007
A variety of musicians have spoken out in favor of the controversial, proposed higher royalty rates for Internet radio proposed by the Copyright Royalty Board (CRB). Drummer Jody Stephens (Big Star, Golden Smog) said in a statement, "If music adds commercial value to someone's site, then there is a monetary value due the writers and recording artists. The decision by the Copyright Royalty Board helps us afford to continue to add this value of music."
"A lot of internet users think of music as a product created and generated by major labels with corporate megadollars and so think nothing of taking or paying very little to use this music," added singer Michelle Shocked. "But the evidence shows that a large majority of music is now created by independent artists with very small margins trying earn a living and it's in that context that the recent decision to raise the internet broadcasting rates are seen as an encouragement to creativity and independence."
Jay Jay French of Twisted Sister added, "With the shrinking royalties from the usual sources, the ever expanding digital universe is apparently becoming the future and, before our very eyes, it is here now. I wholeheartedly support all organizations that endeavor to collect and account to all the hard working artists whose material is exploited. I applaud these new royalty increases as they scratch the surface of the new world order."
Last week, following criticisms and petitions from NPR and other broadcasters, the CRB agreed to grant motions for a possible rehearing over the royalty rates.
March 26, 2007
A variety of musicians have spoken out in favor of the controversial, proposed higher royalty rates for Internet radio proposed by the Copyright Royalty Board (CRB). Drummer Jody Stephens (Big Star, Golden Smog) said in a statement, "If music adds commercial value to someone's site, then there is a monetary value due the writers and recording artists. The decision by the Copyright Royalty Board helps us afford to continue to add this value of music."
"A lot of internet users think of music as a product created and generated by major labels with corporate megadollars and so think nothing of taking or paying very little to use this music," added singer Michelle Shocked. "But the evidence shows that a large majority of music is now created by independent artists with very small margins trying earn a living and it's in that context that the recent decision to raise the internet broadcasting rates are seen as an encouragement to creativity and independence."
Jay Jay French of Twisted Sister added, "With the shrinking royalties from the usual sources, the ever expanding digital universe is apparently becoming the future and, before our very eyes, it is here now. I wholeheartedly support all organizations that endeavor to collect and account to all the hard working artists whose material is exploited. I applaud these new royalty increases as they scratch the surface of the new world order."
Last week, following criticisms and petitions from NPR and other broadcasters, the CRB agreed to grant motions for a possible rehearing over the royalty rates.
Pellaz
Tigron of Immanion
Uh, who?
So, this guy, Michelle Shocked and JJ French are the best they could find for musicians 'speaking out'?
Lemme guess...Lars Ulrich's number was busy.
DAVETHEMETALGUY
Member
yeah, i thought the same thing...i was wondering what the drummer for GOLDEN SMOG was up to actually!
hahaahahahahah
hahaahahahahah
MEFlyingV
Member
Hey everyone, here is more movemement (bad) on this topic.
See below. The second link will automatically e-mail your congressmen and Senators based on your address, so its real easy to make your voices heard.
M.E.
-----------------------------
Internet Radio Update (Reposted from Shadoe at KWTF)
On April 16, 2007, the Copyright Royalty Board denied a petition for a rehearing on the new fees the RIAA are trying to institute against internet radio broadcasters in the United States.
The next recourse for internet broadcasters is for Congress to intercede on our behalf. To do this your congress representatives need to be contacted by any one who has a stake in internet radio or net radio will be silenced. Those who have a stake include the internet radio stations, anyone who listens to internet radio, the musicians who get heard on net radio, the labels who sell cds based on bands being heard on net radio. In this day and age, that pretty much equals the majority of people.
If you do not know who your state represetatives are:
http://www3.capwiz.com/saveinternetradio/issues/alert/?alertid=9631491
Listeners/Webcasters/Interested Parties Form Letter
http://www3.capwiz.com/saveinternetradio/issues/alert/?alertid=9631541
Regards,
Stacey Ashford *aka Shadoe*
Publicist-KWTF Promotions Dept.
http://www.kwtfworldwide.com/
See below. The second link will automatically e-mail your congressmen and Senators based on your address, so its real easy to make your voices heard.
M.E.
-----------------------------
Internet Radio Update (Reposted from Shadoe at KWTF)
On April 16, 2007, the Copyright Royalty Board denied a petition for a rehearing on the new fees the RIAA are trying to institute against internet radio broadcasters in the United States.
The next recourse for internet broadcasters is for Congress to intercede on our behalf. To do this your congress representatives need to be contacted by any one who has a stake in internet radio or net radio will be silenced. Those who have a stake include the internet radio stations, anyone who listens to internet radio, the musicians who get heard on net radio, the labels who sell cds based on bands being heard on net radio. In this day and age, that pretty much equals the majority of people.
If you do not know who your state represetatives are:
http://www3.capwiz.com/saveinternetradio/issues/alert/?alertid=9631491
Listeners/Webcasters/Interested Parties Form Letter
http://www3.capwiz.com/saveinternetradio/issues/alert/?alertid=9631541
Regards,
Stacey Ashford *aka Shadoe*
Publicist-KWTF Promotions Dept.
http://www.kwtfworldwide.com/
Rakosh
Member
AMBR
Metal Grandma
I absolutley, completely agree with everything Lance posted. That is my perspective entirely.
Exploiting? How about promoting? Free publicity is hardly exploiting. Look at it this way, if the bands are willing to pay record lables to promote there stuff, maybe they should be "paying" internet radio stations to promote their music simply by not charging them for doing so. Especially those that don't make a profit.
Exploiting? How about promoting? Free publicity is hardly exploiting. Look at it this way, if the bands are willing to pay record lables to promote there stuff, maybe they should be "paying" internet radio stations to promote their music simply by not charging them for doing so. Especially those that don't make a profit.
Evil
Drunken Bastard
LunaTEKKE
Madness Reigns
- Mar 23, 2006
- 1,220
- 8
- 38
Wouldn't this still be an option under the new rate structure? The paperwork would no doubt be a nightmare...but it would be a better option than asking the Internet radio stations to pay $$ they can't afford.
Artists themselves seem to be split on this issue, just as they are with downloading and concert bootlegs. There has to be a way to let the artists determine for themselves whether the tradeoff of giving up financial compensation in exchange for increased exposure is worth it.
I know I said this once before. But, it bares repeating. We in the metal community HAVE OPTIONS. The internet radio groups HAVE OPTIONS. That is this: Just flatly REFUSE to play RIAA acts. There are hundreds of indy labels out there that want to be heard. So, instead of playing Dream Theater, play Kamelot. Instead of playing Shadows Fall, play more Impaled Nazarene. If they are on a major label, they are persona non grata on internet radio. The indy labels and acts will appreciate the increase in airplay.
Just ask Lance.
Metal has been served a gift horse. Don't shoot it in its head.
Peace,
Ray C.
Just ask Lance.
Metal has been served a gift horse. Don't shoot it in its head.
Peace,
Ray C.
Thank you for contacting me regarding the U.S. Copyright Royalty Board's (CRB) internet radio royalty rates. I appreciate hearing from you.
On March 2, 2007, the CRB released its "Determination of Rates and Terms in Webcasting ." The CRB's decision is intended to simplify the royalty rates for commercial and non-commercial webcasters . The new rates fo r webcasters are set a t an escalating rate through 2010, and most non-commercial webcasters will pay a flat minimum fee per year.
Currently, the Copyright Royalty Judgers are accepting written arguments from affected parties who request a rehearing. If the judges choose not to schedule a rehearing, the new rates and terms will go into effect sometime within 30 to 60 days after March 30, 2007.
I understand the concerns that webcasters and fans of internet radio have regarding the CRB's determination. Should legislation regarding this issue come before the Senate for debate, I will keep your views in mind.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if I may be of assistance to you in the future. In the meantime, if you would like to receive timely e-mail alerts regarding the latest congressional actions and my weekly e-newsletter, please sign up via my web site at: www.chambliss.senate.gov .
On March 2, 2007, the CRB released its "Determination of Rates and Terms in Webcasting ." The CRB's decision is intended to simplify the royalty rates for commercial and non-commercial webcasters . The new rates fo r webcasters are set a t an escalating rate through 2010, and most non-commercial webcasters will pay a flat minimum fee per year.
Currently, the Copyright Royalty Judgers are accepting written arguments from affected parties who request a rehearing. If the judges choose not to schedule a rehearing, the new rates and terms will go into effect sometime within 30 to 60 days after March 30, 2007.
I understand the concerns that webcasters and fans of internet radio have regarding the CRB's determination. Should legislation regarding this issue come before the Senate for debate, I will keep your views in mind.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if I may be of assistance to you in the future. In the meantime, if you would like to receive timely e-mail alerts regarding the latest congressional actions and my weekly e-newsletter, please sign up via my web site at: www.chambliss.senate.gov .
Similar threads
