The recording industry has killed net radio ...

[ouroboros]

But StillStream's official position is that we will no longer deal with the music industry, who we cordially invite to bite our asses.

[Germ777]

The only outcome of all this is more people will get exposed to independent CC licensed music by internet radios.
I think

[WoJ]

But StillStream's official position is that we will no longer deal with the music industry, who we cordially invite to bite our asses.

[leahzero]

Next they are going to have all ISPs pay because music is available on the internet, and that tax will be passed on to us.

Or decide what you can download, which would have a similarly chilling effect on free or small content producers/distributors.

[dover666]

if artists are willing to give the music away, and are willing to put on shows, i don't see why we can't have creative commons gatherings. a festy's a festy, and you're going to have people buying tickets.

[Sickle]

I was supposed to be getting paid when you played my stuff?

[dburgan]

I was supposed to be getting paid when you played my stuff?

Heh, well if you signed up for ASCAP or BMI, then yes you are "supposed" to get royalties for airplay. However, ASCAP and BMI (and SoundExchange) use statistical models in calculating compensation, which seem to exclude people like you and me. I have no intention of playing their game any further.

[aciddose]

i do not see this going anywhere positive for the riaa. they're committing suicide.

the whole logic behind it is ridiculous anyway. you can not apply a flat fee to any copyrighted content regardless of individual license. based upon what i understand the fees apply even if you're broadcasting creative commons licensed material. "broadcast" is really not applicable to the internet either since all data transmission is a form of "broadcast". this only applies to music, but say this applied to all copyright content. does it make sense to pay the riaa some flat fee for all copyright content distributed through any medium at any time? they're just totally brainless and can get f**ked.

this only applies in the united states at the moment too.

if the flat fee really applies the way i think it does, they're attempting to collect this fee even when there is a separate license applied by the copyright owner. isnt this fraud, if these fees are collected? couldnt the real owner of the copyright sue the riaa after such a transaction? (or even after the riaa simply attempted to collect this fee when not entitled to it)

say the riaa collected a flat fee from someone who had broadcast content i own. in that case i would expect to be able to sue the riaa for some amount (maybe 10,000,000 dollars if we're playing it riaa style) as well as legal costs after success. i'd also expect the riaa to be charged with fraud afterward.

[dburgan]

No they cannot demand payment when there is no contractual agreement between the artist and any riaa members.

[aciddose]

if that is the case they can not demand payment without offering proof that content they have been given rights to was broadcast. they'll be challenged and this will be suicide for them, i think.

in my hypothetical i ment, if my content had been broadcast in conjunction with riaa content. if they use a flat fee based upon anything other than exactly the air time of exactly the content they own/represent, collecting such a fee in my opinion is fraud.

which is something else interesting about this. wouldnt this make it impossible to broadcast mixed content? (cc + riaa content)

[Shane Sanders]

I suppose I'll have to look into cancelling my affiliation with BMI as well.

For the people who insist on being paid to be an artist, the only future is to band together and outclass the big boys with:

1. a more pure music
2. a more pure music more often (as in release individual pieces rather than waiting until you've got an album)
3. a more perfect portal for being found according to the criteria that matters to you the artist

[xander]

@Shane

This really could be the Independent Artist paradigm we've all been waiting for

But it really sucks bigtime for the net stations

[Shane Sanders]

"Like, I really — what I want to do is experience the whole entertainment business because, I mean, I'm not just a musician, I'm an entertainer," Malakar said.

Kinda says it all

[Har]

News flash: http://www.computerworld.com/action/art ... src=kc_top

pril 27, 2007 (Computerworld) -- In a show of bipartisan support for online radio, U.S. Reps. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) and Donald Manzullo (R-Ill.) have filed legislation they hope will "prevent the demise of Internet radio."

The Internet Radio Equality Act would reverse a recent decision by the federal Copyright Royalty Board that would at least triple the amount of royalties Internet radio broadcasters must pay to copyright holders to play a song, according to a statement from Manzullo's office.

Under the board ruling, royalty rates will be changed from a percentage of revenue to a per-song, per-listener fee. The entities affected include pure-play Internet radio stations, digital music stations like Pandora.com and traditional broadcast stations that also stream their programs. The new rates, which would be retroactive to 2006, would increase until 2010.

According to Inslee and Manzullo, the new rates amount to a 300% increase for the largest webcasters and up to a 1,200% increase for smaller operations.

The Inslee-Manzullo Internet Radio Equality Act would provide royalty parity for Internet radio providers, the statement said. It would vacate the royalty board's decision and apply the same royalty rate-setting standard to commercial Internet radio, as well as satellite radio, cable radio and jukeboxes. A transition rate of 7.5% of revenue would be set through 2010.

"The Internet has provided us with amazing opportunities to enjoy music, and this unfair action by the CRB threatens to take it all away," said Manzullo in the statement. "Our legislation overturns the huge rate increases and sets up a system that is fair to webcasters, Web users and the artists whose music we all enjoy. And most importantly, it will keep music playing on the Internet."

Christine Hanson, Inslee's spokeswoman, said "Congressman Inslee has been a long-term proponent of media diversity. He thinks that putting radio broadcasters out of business because of these fees is not in the best interests of democracy."

The SaveNetRadio coalition applauded the legislation and said it could save thousands of webcasters from bankruptcy.

"Since the CRB's March 2 decision to dramatically and unfairly increase webcaster royalty rates, millions of Internet radio listeners, webcasters and artists have called on Congress to take action," said Jake Ward, of the SaveNetRadio coalition, in a statement. "Congress took notice, and we thank Messrs. Inslee and Manzullo for leading the charge to save music diversity on the Internet."

[annode]

Sorry man, get a real job. Maybe you can get a few bucks for that...whatever that thing is your playing there.