Internet radio to go silent on June 26?
If you depend on the sounds of Internet radio to get you through your workday, don't be surprised if your headphones pipe out little more than dead air next Tuesday.
In protest of the elevated royalty fees Webcasters are poised to begin owing to the record industry next month, Internet radio operators are planning to stage a "day of silence."
So far, Live365 and AccuRadio.com have agreed to cease their music programming on June 26, save for brief audio public service announcements sprinkled throughout the day, according to a Wednesday report by Kurt Hanson of the Radio and Internet Newsletter,. So has the online presence of KCRW, the Southern California-based public radio station.
UPDATE at 6:03 a.m. PDT on Friday: SaveNetRadio, an advocacy group opposed to the copyright judges' action, has posted an updated list of protest participants (PDF), which now also include Yahoo, RealNetworks' Rhapsody, MTV Online, and more than 30 other stations.
Smaller Webcasters staged a similar protest five years ago in response to a similar rules change by the U.S. Copyright Royalty Board.
At issue are fee hikes that the Internet radio community says could bankrupt its services, particularly those run by smaller operators. SoundExchange, the non-profit collection entity that lobbied for the changes, has repeatedly argued the changes are fair and necessary to ensure artists are compensated adequately.
Opponents of the changes are still hoping for a reprieve before the July 15 date on which the royalties are scheduled to kick in. They are continuing to pressure politicians on Capitol Hill to pass bills that would overturn the royalty rate increases and align them with those required of other digital services, such as satellite. Some groups have also asked a federal appeals court to delay the rate changes.
We should stop talking about how "RIAA" persecutes single mothers and children with cancer, and start talking about how ***SONY MUSIC*** persecutes single mothers and children with cancer, how ***EMI*** persecutes single mothers and children with cancer, how ***UNIVERSAL*** persecutes single mothers and children with cancer, how ***WARNER BROTHERS*** persecutes single mothers and children with cancer.
Or better yet: about how Madonna's labels, Britney Spears' labels, Smashing Pumpkins' labels, Eminem's labels etc. persecute single mothers and children with cancer. THAT'LL have actual results.
Talking only about "RIAA" remove the blame from the actual culprits. Start hitting the names behind it and then they (and "RIAA") will feel the consumer wrath were it hurts more: their pockets.
everything to be free and/or regulated by the government. You
want price controls? Try China or some other socialist cesspool.
Pregnant mothers and children who steal should be persecuted
AND prosecuted. It's no different than walking into WalMart and
shoplifting a CD. Possession of stolen property is a crime too
and having pirated music files on your system is possession.
I'm willing to bet that all of you whiners have never paid a penny
for any of your music files. You stole them and rationalized it by
claiming the record labels are evil. How convenient for you. Why
not steal a car and claim that BMW deserves it because their cars
are too expensive.
I wonder, if the RIAA labels claim to be acting on the behalf of artists, could it then be technically accurate to say, "Britney Spears sues grandmother" instead of "Britney Spears' label sues grandmother?" Maybe approaching a dangerous line there, but the more familiar the name, the more recognizable to the average consumer.
false claim.
This is like a bad bank debt where everything is
upside down.What is false is the assertion that they
are trying to fairly compensate the artists. Hah, an obvious load of crap!. If they were
so concerned about that, the first they would do is
attack subscribtion services, because under that scheme it is
damn near impossible to fairly compenstate individual
artists. Oh, wait ... I nearly forgot!
They don't give a damn about the artists, only their own
pockets!
The difference in local terrestrial radio and internet radio is that local radio stations DO PAY fees to play each song that they broadcast to a LOCAL audience. Then they charge advertisers to offset that fee and make a profit.
Internet radio can not do the same, because no matter where you are in the world, you hear the same advertisements, but they might not pertain to you.
So, your comparison is no where near accurate.
already pay fees. What is not understandable, except the
labels desire to shut them down, is the rate hike on existing
fees.
xx
Doing whatever it takes to make a point is necessary now. If Internet radio stations cannot afford to play any music from artists under the RIAA, they will limit their variety. There are still plenty of great signed artists even though most of them get little airplay.
Quote:
Slashdot points us to an article dissecting the fine print, where you'll discover that SoundExchange, which is the RIAA's collection body, actually gets to collect money for non-RIAA members as well. In other words, even for independent artists who don't want webcasters to have to pay, webcasters will still need to pay up.
The story actually gets even worse. As we noted a few years ago, part of the deal is that SoundExchange and the RIAA get to keep any unclaimed money for themselves. Even better, SoundExchange can simply pretend not to be able to find the musicians (as they've done with a ton of big name musicians in the past). So, chances are, many independent artists have no idea that SoundExchange is hanging onto a bunch of money they didn't even want collected and there's almost no chance they'll claim it -- meaning that if you try to avoid the webcasting rates by playing non-RIAA music, there's a good chance you're actually enriching the RIAA even more.
more because of these price hikes, everyone knows the Pimps of
the music industry are the ones who are going to reap the
rewards..!!!!
does not pass through their label first. So as long as an artist
has registered with SoundExchange, which is free, payments
come directly to them for any airplay they get on web stations,
satellite radio, cable subscription services, etc. The sound
recording copyright owner (usually a record label, but in the
case of unsigned artists, the artist) also get royalties for these
performances, but they're paid separately. Breakdown is 45% to
artist, 50% to sound recording copyright owner, 5% to unions
that pay backup musicians/singers through a royalty pool.