PDA

View Full Version : Take action! against recent copyright ruling


progdirjim
03-23-2007, 03:30 AM
Cut and paste from an e-mail I received:

1) Take action, by contacting your Washington Representatives directly. You will find their names at this link: http://www.congress.org/congressorg/directory/congdir.tt.

2) Sign a petition reflecting your disagreement with the Copyright Royalty Board's decision: http://www.petitiononline.com/SIR2007r/petition.html

Thanks for your interest!
Jim

Ted
03-23-2007, 06:13 AM
Cut and paste from an e-mail I received:

1) Take action, by contacting your Washington Representatives directly. You will find their names at this link: http://www.congress.org/congressorg/directory/congdir.tt.

2) Sign a petition reflecting your disagreement with the Copyright Royalty Board's decision: http://www.petitiononline.com/SIR2007r/petition.html

Thanks for your interest!
Jim

Jim,

I have done both things. I have email all three of my Senators/Reps and signed the petition. Aural Moonies - Unite - Make your voice heard!

Ted

Rick and Roll
03-23-2007, 07:08 AM
This is my comment......

"No one is being harmed by internet radio. And the artists will not benefit by this legislation. In fact, THEY will be harmed. Please do not tamper with a fine product that only serves the public interest."

jtmckinley
03-23-2007, 12:33 PM
I've already sent email to both Senators and signed petitions as well. Fingers crossed...

ZoOgY-DoOgY
03-23-2007, 06:23 PM
I was about to sign and saw "US citizens" etc... :\
What exactly is this ? I'm not sure to understand what's going on. Can someone tell me a bit more to clarify ? It doesn't sound very good (to not say it sounds bad)...

[EDIT]Ok, nvm, it is completly clear now, I found another article... (http://www.1.fm/Community/tm.aspx?m=7428) This is really bad news. I have two more questions now to ask :
- What about Aural Moon precisely ?
- Is there anything Aural Moon/Internet Radios listeners who are not living in U.S. could do ?

:aua:

PeterG
03-26-2007, 07:10 AM
<<snip>>
I have two more questions now to ask :
<<Snip>>
- Is there anything Aural Moon/Internet Radios listeners who are not living in U.S. could do ?

:aua:

My suggestion for non US residents would pick a Senator... (Maybe Hillary Clinton, since she is running for prez she can be put on the spot) and write a polite letter stating that you are from another country and since Internet radio is a worldwide phenomenon, you are distressed that a decision like this will ruin internet radio for people all over the world. etc...

VAXman
03-26-2007, 07:17 AM
My suggestion for non US residents would pick a Senator... (Maybe Hillary Clinton, since she is running for prez she can be put on the spot) and write a polite letter stating that you are from another country and since Internet radio is a worldwide phenomenon, you are distressed that a decision like this will ruin internet radio for people all over the world. etc...Don't waste your time on her; the only thing Hillary Clinton is concerned with is Hillary Clinton.

There are some more prominent Senators and Congresspersons that are not concerned about the White House that would be better bets.

KeithieW
03-26-2007, 07:53 AM
Don't waste your time on her; the only thing Hillary Clinton is concerned with is Hillary Clinton.

There are some more prominent Senators and Congresspersons that are not concerned about the White House that would be better bets.
Suggest a few names VAX and let me know how to contact them and I will. This is a bit of a hot potato and needs to be handled well.

ZoOgY-DoOgY
03-26-2007, 09:06 AM
Suggest a few names VAX and let me know how to contact them and I will. This is a bit of a hot potato and needs to be handled well.Exactly. Same here, and I guess one friend will be ready and maybe friends of this friend etc...

kirk
03-26-2007, 01:35 PM
Sorry Jim. This is sickening.
This is the goddamned RIAA, trying to stop the hemmorage.
I'm seeing a lot of effort on my, and many other indies
circling the bowl along w/ you.

Here's a link to better explain the situation to all-
http://www.saveourinternetradio.com/about/

One thing I may have missed, but didn't see mentioned,
is that the ruling is retroactive to Jan. 2006....
meaning that station owners owe someone a ton of money
even if they halt operations immediately.

My guess is, they'll drag RadioParadise, or one of the other biggies
into court, make an example of them to scare the crap out of
the rest of you.

The only solution I can see is to decentralize the server points
stream directly from multiple sites/computers ala some of the surviving
DVD piracy sites.
Vax- Is that possible?

K

kirk
03-26-2007, 01:42 PM
This is a bit of a hot potato and needs to be handled well.

hey KW-

You don't know this government, do you? :eyes:
You can't imagine how much "lobbying" $$ was thrown into
this by the RIAA.

The only option of this being "handled well", is akin to the
final scene of "Frankenstein".

:-V

Kirk

VAXman
03-26-2007, 02:31 PM
Sorry Jim. This is sickening.
This is the goddamned RIAA, trying to stop the hemmorage.
I'm seeing a lot of effort on my, and many other indies
circling the bowl along w/ you.

Here's a link to better explain the situation to all-
http://www.saveourinternetradio.com/about/

One thing I may have missed, but didn't see mentioned,
is that the ruling is retroactive to Jan. 2006....
meaning that station owners owe someone a ton of money
even if they halt operations immediately.

My guess is, they'll drag RadioParadise, or one of the other biggies
into court, make an example of them to scare the crap out of
the rest of you.

The only solution I can see is to decentralize the server points
stream directly from multiple sites/computers ala some of the surviving
DVD piracy sites.
Vax- Is that possible?

K
I'm concerned with the ripple-down effect this will have. There are stream replication services that, once people start taking down their stations, will fail. In turn, these replication services are big subscribers to internet pipeline providers. This CRB decision will affect many things. Even *IF* every track that falls under the auspices of the RIAA was removed from the Aural Moon library (removing AM's indebtedness to these bastards), I fear that the replication services -- being hit by others pulling out -- will increase fees. I think we are all in a no win/no win situation unless the CRB reverses this rate decision. As I see it, we all have a snowball's chance in hell of that happening. Sorry for being the harbinger of such a dismal destiny.

*If* there was a viable and affordable replication service outside the US, it would be a possible avenue to avoid this "blood money leeching" from the RIAA leeches.


FWIW, I did write my 2 senators (both worthless shits) and my congressman Chris Smith.

kirk
03-26-2007, 03:00 PM
I think we are all in a no win/no win situation unless the CRB reverses this rate decision. As I see it, we all have a snowball's chance in hell of that happening.

Agreed. The RIAA's losing billions per year to the CD's decline.
Internet radio's easy pickings compared to Itunes, ect.
which is controllable by crawling into bed w/.

*If* there was a viable and affordable replication service outside the US, it would be
a possible avenue to avoid this "blood money leeching" from the RIAA leeches.
Or move the ISP/server to a Euro site, former Communist-
bloc country, or the Phillipines...?
http://pinas.dlsu.edu.ph/tech/isp.html

I'm not that up on this end of the tech, but maybe i can
get lucky, spark an idea.

K

kirk
03-28-2007, 11:43 AM
Here comes another round-

Musicians Campaign for Free Internet
By DIBYA SARKAR, AP Business Writer
4 hours ago

WASHINGTON - Sensing a revolution in the way Internet traffic is managed, rock musicians find themselves in the unusual position of defending the status quo.

Independent, lesser-known musicians and smaller record labels launched a nationwide campaign Tuesday to support the idea that all Internet traffic should be treated equally, which they said is under fire from providers who want to charge a fee to have some Web sites load faster than others.

The Rock the Net campaign, made up mostly of musicians who are on smaller record labels or none at all, said they're fearful that if the so-called "Net neutrality" principle is abandoned, their music may not be heard because they don't have the financial means to pay for preferential treatment.

Some said they don't want to pay. The Web, they said, has allowed many unknown musicians to put their music online, giving fans instant access to new music and giving bands greater marketing capabilities.

They said independent record labels are also on an equal Web footing with major players like Apple Inc.'s iTunes.

"It could be a pretty sad world where money alone buys the ears and anybody that can't afford it, can't get proper placement, is pushed off to the ghettos," said Derek Sivers, owner of CD Baby, an online store that sells compact discs by independent musicians.

K

VAXman
03-28-2007, 11:53 AM
Here comes another round-

Musicians Campaign for Free Internet
By DIBYA SARKAR, AP Business Writer
4 hours ago

WASHINGTON - Sensing a revolution in the way Internet traffic is managed, rock musicians find themselves in the unusual position of defending the status quo.

Independent, lesser-known musicians and smaller record labels launched a nationwide campaign Tuesday to support the idea that all Internet traffic should be treated equally, which they said is under fire from providers who want to charge a fee to have some Web sites load faster than others.

The Rock the Net campaign, made up mostly of musicians who are on smaller record labels or none at all, said they're fearful that if the so-called "Net neutrality" principle is abandoned, their music may not be heard because they don't have the financial means to pay for preferential treatment.

Some said they don't want to pay. The Web, they said, has allowed many unknown musicians to put their music online, giving fans instant access to new music and giving bands greater marketing capabilities.

They said independent record labels are also on an equal Web footing with major players like Apple Inc.'s iTunes.

"It could be a pretty sad world where money alone buys the ears and anybody that can't afford it, can't get proper placement, is pushed off to the ghettos," said Derek Sivers, owner of CD Baby, an online store that sells compact discs by independent musicians.

K
OK, da cat is outta da bag...

Tomorrow's theme is insanity. If you think all of this RIAA control is crazy, I would like to point you all to http://www.embraceinsanity.com There is much food for thought at this site.

Everything that is good and wholesome is eventually corrupted by greed or law or both.

Ted
03-29-2007, 01:20 PM
Here is the response I got back from one of my Senators:

From: "SenateWebmail@cornyn.senate.gov" <SenateWebmail@cornyn.senate.gov>
To: tacneil@sbcglobal.net
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 12:04:51 PM
Subject: Thank You For Contacting My Office

Dear Mr. and Mrs. Neil:

Thank you for contacting me about the important issue of music performance rights. I appreciate having the benefit of your comments on this important matter.

As you are aware, rapid advances in communications technology have led to the development of digital television and radio, as well as subscription satellite television and radio services. These new capabilities expand the range of choices available to consumers; subscription satellite radio is one of the most successful examples of quickly advancing technology. I welcome such consumer-driven innovation and enjoy a personal satellite radio subscription.

As expected, technological innovation also brings with it the threat of copyright infringement. While recent technology advances represent important achievements, we must, on principle, protect the intellectual property rights of those responsible for such innovation. You may be certain that I will continue working with my Senate colleagues to strike a balance between copyright protection and technological advance and that I will keep your concerns in mind should the Senate consider relevant legislation during the 110th Congress.

I appreciate having the opportunity to represent the interests of Texans in the United States Senate. Thank you for taking the time to contact me.

Sincerely,

JOHN CORNYN
United States Senator





517 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Tel: (202) 224-2934
Fax: (202) 228-2856
http://www.cornyn.senate.gov

Rick and Roll
03-29-2007, 01:46 PM
Here is the response I got back from one of my Senators:



Ted, you obviously must have written a clear and concise note. The reply is probably as good as it can get.

As someone who has tried to work with legislators on traffic issues, it is extemely difficult to carve out time. Although he warns that the decisions may not be favorable to what we seek, there is at least a basic understanding and attention. At least it doesn't sound like he's blowing smoke up our asses.

I'm sure everyone knows someone in the political, medical, or law field. Although usually money drives everything in life, it doesn't necessarily make these professions evil. I can appreciate my cousin's husband (a State Senator) - although being a total 180 to my political views, is a nice family-oriented man.

Ted, you missed your calling...nice work!

VAXman
03-29-2007, 02:05 PM
Here is the response I got back from one of my Senators:

From: "SenateWebmail@cornyn.senate.gov" <SenateWebmail@cornyn.senate.gov>
To: tacneil@sbcglobal.net
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 12:04:51 PM
Subject: Thank You For Contacting My Office

Dear Mr. and Mrs. Neil:

Thank you for contacting me about the important issue of music performance rights. I appreciate having the benefit of your comments on this important matter.

As you are aware, rapid advances in communications technology have led to the development of digital television and radio, as well as subscription satellite television and radio services. These new capabilities expand the range of choices available to consumers; subscription satellite radio is one of the most successful examples of quickly advancing technology. I welcome such consumer-driven innovation and enjoy a personal satellite radio subscription.

As expected, technological innovation also brings with it the threat of copyright infringement. While recent technology advances represent important achievements, we must, on principle, protect the intellectual property rights of those responsible for such innovation. You may be certain that I will continue working with my Senate colleagues to strike a balance between copyright protection and technological advance and that I will keep your concerns in mind should the Senate consider relevant legislation during the 110th Congress.

I appreciate having the opportunity to represent the interests of Texans in the United States Senate. Thank you for taking the time to contact me.

Sincerely,

JOHN CORNYN
United States Senator





517 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Tel: (202) 224-2934
Fax: (202) 228-2856
http://www.cornyn.senate.gov


OK... this needs translation:

Thank you for contacting me about the important issue of music performance rights.
Oh shit! Another US citizen writing me about something that counters what the RIAA's deep pocket, money driven lobbyists want me to do and to whom I am far more loyal to than any citizen.


I appreciate having the benefit of your comments on this important matter.

OK, I've responded with my crocodile tears hypocrisy. Oh intern! Please come here as I have something for you to file in the circular file.


As you are aware, rapid advances in communications technology have led to the development of digital television and radio, as well as subscription satellite television and radio services.
Corporations like XM Satellite radio and Sirius Satellite Radio have crawled into bed with the government to force feed you, and for a fee too, the same pablum shit you were getting before from free over-the-airwave commercial radio.


These new capabilities expand the range of choices available to consumers; subscription satellite radio is one of the most successful examples of quickly advancing technology.

These new capabilities expand the profits extractable from the citizenry; satellite radio is the best example of this because it lured people into a false sense of belief that it was different from over-the-airwaves commercial radio shit. Same old shit but now you get to pay for it!


I welcome such consumer-driven innovation and enjoy a personal satellite radio subscription.

We will decide what you will hear, and see, and make absolutely certain that you pay for it too! Look, it must be good for you as I am doing it too. Come on, you're just another stupid common citizen! Surely you will fall for the lame bandwagoneering argument I've just imparted.


As expected, technological innovation also brings with it the threat of copyright infringement.

As expected, technological innovation also brings with it the threat of freedom of speech and the free expression of ideas. Holy shit! This is america, we can't have the citizens actually having any real freedom.


While recent technology advances represent important achievements, we must, on principle, protect the intellectual property rights of those responsible for such innovation.

While recent technology advances represent important achievements, we must, on principle, censor any free ideas and thoughts, and restrict the rights of those using such innovation as the internet.


You may be certain that I will continue working with my Senate colleagues to strike a balance between copyright protection and technological advance

You may be certain that I will continue working with my Senate colleagues to strike down any freedom technological advances provide using the strong arm of copyright protection to bolster the profits of corporate america.



and that I will keep your concerns in mind should the Senate consider relevant legislation during the 110th Congress.

...and I don't give a rats arse about your concerns. I am too busy trying to legislate more ways to fuck the american public.



I appreciate having the opportunity to represent the interests of Texans in the United States Senate. Thank you for taking the time to contact me.
Now go crawl back under whatever rock you crawled out of and leave me alone to the special interests and lobbyists.


Sincerely,

JOHN CORNYN
United States Senator

Bugger off! Long live the RIAA!

JOHN CORNYN
United States Senator

VAXman
03-29-2007, 02:32 PM
Ted, you obviously must have written a clear and concise note. The reply is probably as good as it can get.

As someone who has tried to work with legislators on traffic issues, it is extemely difficult to carve out time. Although he warns that the decisions may not be favorable to what we seek, there is at least a basic understanding and attention. At least it doesn't sound like he's blowing smoke up our asses.
No, he's shoving a proverbial fist there! Naïveté.


I'm sure everyone knows someone in the political, medical, or law field. Although usually money drives everything in life, it doesn't necessarily make these professions evil. I can appreciate my cousin's husband (a State Senator) - although being a total 180 to my political views, is a nice family-oriented man.

Perhaps you never heard the old cliché: Money is the root of all evil!

Rick and Roll
03-29-2007, 02:43 PM
No, he's shoving a proverbial fist there! Naïveté.


Perhaps you never heard the old cliché: Money is the root of all evil!

While you're post is witty and amusing, and I appreciate the time you took, please don't spend any time responding to mine. I'm just complimenting Ted.

I fully understand the process and the fact that he probably didn't write the letter himself - naive is certainly not one thing I am.

Ted
03-29-2007, 03:03 PM
While you're post is witty and amusing, and I appreciate the time you took, please don't spend any time responding to mine. I'm just complimenting Ted.

I fully understand the process and the fact that he probably didn't write the letter himself - naive is certainly not one thing I am.

Hey Rick & Vax,

It is 'love of money" that is the root of all evil. Money, by itself, isn't evil. Only when we desire what is not ours, and hurt others to get it.... lots of things in life are like that.

2 cents for now...

Don't quit making your voice heard.

Ted

VAXman
03-29-2007, 05:26 PM
While you're post is witty and amusing, and I appreciate the time you took, please don't spend any time responding to mine. I'm just complimenting Ted.
I contacted my 3 reps with, more or less, one of the form letters posted regarding this issue. It was short and to the point as I didn't want to challenge my reps with a tiring reading exercise. I've received no response whatsoever. So, in that regard, I suppose Ted deserves to be commended.

I fully understand the process and the fact that he probably didn't write the letter himself - naive is certainly not one thing I am.
You said, "...it doesn't sound like he's blowing smoke up our asses." and I had to say that it is pretty naïve to think that. If you would have visited the Embrace Insanity link I posted earlier, you will see that EVERYTHING Mr. Cornyn wrote is exactly what they want you to believe. Watch this brief video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66PbSzwnLes(§) from the Embrace Insanity web site. The RIAA wants full control over what you will get. The internet carriers want full control over what you get. And, of course, the government wants full control over what you get. Hmm. Reeks of collusion to me. FDR's thought police are still running amuck!

(§) This can't be true! Nowhere does it mention Al Gore and we all know HE invented the internet.

Rick and Roll
03-29-2007, 05:44 PM
I thought you hated You Tube? :knowing:

I didn't see any concrete solutions on there just complaining.:zzzzz:

"They"..."they" is "Us".

VAXman
03-29-2007, 06:20 PM
I thought you hated You Tube? :knowing:

News to me. :???: What about gefilte fish and licorice?


I didn't see any concrete solutions on there just complaining.:zzzzz:

I'd already stated when I first posted that site's link that I do not agree with some of what is there. For example, I find it more than a bit hypocritical to rail against the machine and then request that one to become one with the machine in order to join their mailing list. (yahoo or google lists)

The point is there are many salient points in that brief video. Having been around pre-CIX (launch date the 1st of Endless-September), I have seen the internet erode. The first big offender was AOL with its AOL "members-only" content... but, AOLers could salt the rest of the internet with their unique brand of netiquette (notiquette).




"They"..."they" is "Us".
Huh?

Roger -Dot- Lee
03-29-2007, 07:15 PM
Hey Rick & Vax,

It is 'love of money" that is the root of all evil.


He's got ya there.


Don't quit making your voice heard.

Ted

I only wish I shared in your optimism.

VAXman
03-29-2007, 07:46 PM
He's got ya there.



I only wish I shared in your optimism.
Dante Alighieri popularized the seven deadly sins in his Divine Comedy.

Lust, Gluttony, Greed, Sloth, Wrath, Envy and Pride.

Money is just a modern mechanism for the measurement of these sins. Lust for it. Greed to a acquire it. Gluttony for more of it. Envy of it. I'm sure you could probably apply the rest of them too. Money, itself, is just a medium of exchange. When one says money is the root of all evil, they speak to the various sins as I've described.


As for Optimism, I used to have abundant optimism. I think my cistern of optimism was finally drained dry the 3rd year I was in federal court. Remember David and Goliath? No, not the silly claymation, the story of little David doing battle with the giant Golliath. It is JUST a story. That's why my optimism is all dried up.

Ted
03-29-2007, 07:46 PM
I only wish I shared in your optimism.

Roger.Lee,

sometimes Optimism is all I got - so I cling to it - same with faith - but as with all things, this too shall pass - something my mother-in-law taught me.

What bothers me most - this sort of reminds me of 'prohibition' - the more you restrict it - the more people will resort to illegal means....

I still think more of us can make our voice heard.

Ted

kirk
03-31-2007, 02:25 PM
Corporations like XM Satellite radio and Sirius Satellite Radio have crawled into bed with the government to force feed you, and for a fee too, the same pablum shit you were getting before from free over-the-airwave commercial radio.

I guess you haven't heard-
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5411449

That bed could use an electric blanket!

The owner of RadioParadise ('you think Jim has problems!)
made a statement this week that under the new plan,
he'd owe $650,000 next year...!
As the new law is retroactive to Jan.'06, he's
likely looking at "grab yer ankles and grin" time.

Pees

K

ZoOgY-DoOgY
03-31-2007, 06:11 PM
The owner of RadioParadise ('you think Jim has problems!)
made a statement this week that under the new plan,
he'd owe $650,000 next year...!
:eek:

Rick and Roll
03-31-2007, 07:07 PM
I guess you haven't heard-
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5411449

That bed could use an electric blanket!

The owner of RadioParadise ('you think Jim has problems!)
made a statement this week that under the new plan,
he'd owe $650,000 next year...!
As the new law is retroactive to Jan.'06, he's
likely looking at "grab yer ankles and grin" time.

Pees

K

I find it difficult to imagine a retraoctive law being enforcable when there was no willful malice.:hrm:

VAXman
04-01-2007, 08:57 AM
I find it difficult to imagine a retraoctive law being enforcable when there was no willful malice.:hrm:

I've been reading and rereading Title 17 and, specifically, the sections which apply to these "royalties". A law is not enforceable ex post facto. This is not technically a law; it is that the LoC CRB granted an increase of fees already being collected. It may be that since the RIAA petitioned the LoC CRB and it took 2 years of their (the RIAA's) coercion of the LoC CRB to get their way, these fees may actually be applicable retroactively.

Gawd I hate lawyers. What is needed is a class legal action by all of the internet radio stations to get this nonsense put to bed. Sadly, it would require a really good IP lawyer(s) to squash this. I'd wager that if everyone who enjoys listening to internet radio coughed up $10 for the stream they are using, the collected amount might be enough to retain such legal representation. I'd caution against this because lawyering is about 2 things and 2 things only: greed and money. Once retained, these lawyers would drag this on ad infinitum -- if they could -- but the money on "our" side would be quickly depleted and we'd all be back in the same proverbial fecal infested waterway without a handheld propelling implement.

Trust me on this. I spent 3.5 years in US Federal Court (Fed. Justice Garrett E. Brown). When everybody's pockets were emptied, the parties went off feeling ill-used and the lawyers well funded. Judge G.E.B. remained the fuckwit he always was.

Rick and Roll
04-01-2007, 09:08 AM
I've been reading and rereading Title 17 and, specifically, the sections which apply to these "royalties". A law is not enforceable ex post facto. This is not technically a law; it is that the LoC CRB granted an increase of fees already being collected. It may be that since the RIAA petitioned the LoC CRB and it took 2 years of their (the RIAA's) coercion of the LoC CRB to get their way, these fees may actually be applicable retroactively.

Gawd I hate lawyers. What is needed is a class legal action by all of the internet radio stations to get this nonsense put to bed. Sadly, it would require a really good IP lawyer(s) to squash this. I'd wager that if everyone who enjoys listening to internet radio coughed up $10 for the stream they are using, the collected amount might be enough to retain such legal representation. I'd caution against this because lawyering is about 2 things and 2 things only: greed and money. Once retained, these lawyers would drag this on ad infinitum -- if they could -- but the money on "our" side would be quickly depleted and we'd all be back in the same proverbial fecal infested waterway without a handheld propelling implement.

Trust me on this. I spent 3.5 years in US Federal Court (Fed. Justice Garrett E. Brown). When everybody's pockets were emptied, the parties went off feeling ill-used and the lawyers well funded. Judge G.E.B. remained the fuckwit he always was.

Agreed, vax but isn't there two levels at play here? For dinky little outfits like us, we don't receive any profit, just donations to cover costs. If the ruling goes through, I guess we'll just stop what we do and only play independents. But certainly there'd be no retroactive "damages" against us.

I'd rather just react and adapt, and not pay any money for representation also, but for a different reason. There are a few lawyers that will take a case like this on its merits. But it wouldn't be worth my time and effort if it cost me money without the guarantee of results. It isn't worth my time to stress over.

jtmckinley
04-02-2007, 02:09 PM
I wonder if this issue could be cast in such a way as to get the EFF interested? IIRC the EFF legal team works pro bono so that would remove the money-grubbing lawyer worries. In fact it looks like they're already involved with fighting the PERFORM act which seems related albeit maybe even worse:

https://secure.eff.org/site/Advocacy?JServSessionIdr005=zq5q6gycn2.app2a&cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=221

Here's an overview page regarding their involvement with fair use and DRM, not sure if the rate increase issue would fit under that umbrella, but it might:

http://www.eff.org/IP/fairuse/

kirk
04-02-2007, 02:15 PM
" From the blog of Chris Thomas, founder of Palo Duro Records: "The U.S. Copyright Royalty Board has established a royalty proposal for webcasters (internet radio) which is absolutely insane, and will effectively wipe our the last remnants of passion-driven music programming from North America.

"This irresponsible government policy will push a tremendous growth opportunity and potential economic boom for the music industry to offshore locations immune to, and even defiant of, artist/label rights."

Despite where the signal's actually streaming from,
I'm thinking they're going to have a tough time busting
a station that technically originates from outside the jurisdiction.

Vax- let's figure out some blows against the empire.

K

VAXman
04-02-2007, 03:20 PM
" From the blog of Chris Thomas, founder of Palo Duro Records: "The U.S. Copyright Royalty Board has established a royalty proposal for webcasters (internet radio) which is absolutely insane, and will effectively wipe our the last remnants of passion-driven music programming from North America.

"This irresponsible government policy will push a tremendous growth opportunity and potential economic boom for the music industry to offshore locations immune to, and even defiant of, artist/label rights."

Despite where the signal's actually streaming from,
I'm thinking they're going to have a tough time busting
a station that technically originates from outside the jurisdiction.

Vax- let's figure out some blows against the empire.

K

I wonder what the electrical configuration requirements would be for a server in Afghanistan.

kirk
04-02-2007, 04:06 PM
Oh, very droll !:yougo

I don't think you have to go quite that far.
Canada (so far) has flipped off the RIAA at
every turn, including P2P file sharing.

http://www.boingboing.net/2004/03/31/canadas_riaa_cant_pr.html

So, let's look for a solution.
After all, it's only Jim's money.:knowing:

How about offshore co-location?

http://www.offshore-web-hosts.com/?gclid=CJ6K-Zr5pIsCFQqgYgodBycIkg

http://www.offshore-web-hosts.com/colocation.php

"Offshore Legal Services based in Panama
Offshore is an international term meaning not only out of your country (jurisdiction) but out of the tax reach of your country of residence or citizenship; synonymous with foreign, transnational, global, international, transworld and multi-national. By hosting your website offer you are able to receive all of these benefits and not be under the direct jurisdiction of your resident country. This is particularly of interest to businesses who do not wish prying eyes to view their online transactions".



K

roger
04-07-2007, 09:52 AM
good stuff from David Byrne (http://journal.davidbyrne.com/2007/04/4107_your_gover.html)

kirk
04-07-2007, 10:54 AM
Hey Roger-
How's it going?
'Been squeezing any music into the schedule?

Thanks for the link.

I sincerely hope no one's holding out for Congress to
fold on this one, but I guess if internet radio's going to roll over
and die, it's a great time to be an indie, eh?

P e a c e
kirk

VAXman
04-09-2007, 11:50 AM
Just FYI, my written response from proNJ Congressman Chris Smith re the RIAA/CRB rate increases:

http://www.tmesis.com/no_crap/

VAXman
04-10-2007, 07:44 AM
Just FYI, my written response from proNJ Congressman Chris Smith re the RIAA/CRB rate increases:

http://www.tmesis.com/no_crap/

Before somebody reads this URL and thinks that I believe this letter is not crap, please let me explain.

I've been talking about a grass-roots campaign of public awareness... much like the Embrace Insanity group is doing to combat the forces trying to make extinct the ideas of net-neutrality. I called the link /no_crap for my plans to get a movement underway entitled: No C.R.A.P... for No Corporate & RIAA Approved Radio. It fits since most radio is crap and controlled by the Corps and RIAA.

I am dismayed when I check, each day, the progress of the net petitions. The numbers seem to be hovering under the 50K signator mark. I feel that there are more people who would be concerned about this IF they knew about it. Distribute fliers, both physical and electronic, explaining what is happening to our freedom to listen to what we want to listen to and that it is being taken away in the interests of the Corps and RIAA. We are getting shortchanged in the same way as the artists represented by these leeches. Spread the word! No C.R.A.P.

More on No C.R.A.P. later...

lotus
04-11-2007, 04:47 PM
This link could help to spread the movement against RIAA

http://www.savethestreams.org/

PFD
04-16-2007, 11:08 AM
Another relevant article, if you haven't seen it yet...

http://technology.canoe.ca/Internet/2007/04/16/4034315-ap.html

kirk
04-16-2007, 12:32 PM
The one ray of hope here, is that the really biggies,
such as Yahoo, Comcast, MSN has the means to go after
the ruling should they decide it's monetarily feasible.

Otherwise, i get the sensation of watching the favorite team
play on television w/ the fingers crossed.

P e a c e

K

VAXman
04-16-2007, 12:44 PM
The one ray of hope here, is that the really biggies,
such as Yahoo, Comcast, MSN has the means to go after
the ruling should they decide it's monetarily feasible.

Otherwise, i get the sensation of watching the favorite team
play on television w/ the fingers crossed.

P e a c e

K
Yahoo (A big...ger corp. in fact jumped about 100 in the fortune 500 just recently.), Comcast (A cable company? C'mon, they're one of the big offenders in the net-neutrality argument!) and M$N (Puhleez! M$, the criminal monopoly, is the kingpin here.) -- We're doomed! They will collude amongst themselves and coerce the RIAA/CRB to structure rates to their benefit and the detriment of the little guys like AM. This is, AFAIAC, all about content control. Yet another nail in the net-neutrality coffin.

Rick and Roll
04-16-2007, 12:45 PM
The one ray of hope here, is that the really biggies,
such as Yahoo, Comcast, MSN has the means to go after
the ruling should they decide it's monetarily feasible.

Otherwise, i get the sensation of watching the favorite team
play on television w/ the fingers crossed.

P e a c e

K

Wonder if ringtones are covered :aua:

kirk
04-16-2007, 01:48 PM
Yahoo (A big...ger corp. in fact jumped about 100 in the fortune 500 just recently.), Comcast (A cable company? C'mon, they're one of the big offenders in the net-neutrality argument!) and M$N (Puhleez! M$, the criminal monopoly, is the kingpin here.) -- We're doomed! They will collude amongst themselves and coerce the RIAA/CRB to structure rates to their benefit and the detriment of the little guys like AM. This is, AFAIAC, all about content control. Yet another nail in the net-neutrality coffin.

"Besides a group of small webcasters, a coalition of Web companies
including Yahoo Inc. also objected, as did public and other radio stations
that would be covered by the new rates".

I know B, I named the profane ones in my post, but
MSN sells my stuff :D
I guess in all fairness, so does Itunes.

Politics makes for strange bedfellows, eh?
So, how far up the ladder do we have to go to find the pockets..?
We all know that justice would be charging on a profitabilty slider, but...
IMO- in this case, it takes a giant to slay a giant.

BTW- I'm predicting that the more draconian portions of the decision
will be used as a compromise, like "retroactive to Jan. 06.." .
If that's why they exist, it's evil, but very good stategy.


K

VAXman
04-16-2007, 02:59 PM
From: frank_lautenberg@lautenberg.senate.gov


Dear Mr. Schenkenberger :

Thank you for contacting me about copyright licenses and the "PERFORM Act." I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue.

In the age of the Internet and satellite radio, technology can often advance faster than the law, making it difficult to maintain a system that ensures both public access to artistic content and fair compensation for artists' efforts. U.S. copyright laws distinguish between the protection of performance rights-for example, when a s o ng is broadcast on TV or over the radio-and distribution rights, such as the sale of a CD . Both terrestrial and satellite radio stations may broadcast an artist's work in exchange for paying performance royalties, but such stations do not have to pay distribution royalties under current law.

In early 2006, satellite radio companies introduced new handheld devices that allow subscribers to record, store, and replay digital music off the air. The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) contends that these devices constitute both performance and distribution of music, thereby violating copyright holders' rights.

The "Platform Equality and Remedies for Rights Holders in Music (PERFORM) Act" (S. 256) seeks to remedy this situation by streamlin ing the various processes for determining rates and terms for royalty payments by subscription, non-subscription, and satellite services into one process.

The PERFORM Act is pending before the Senate Judiciary Committee. While I am not a member of that committee, please be assured I will monitor this issue closely, and I will work to ensure that the protection of copyrights does not impede the development of new technologies and consumer choice.

Thank you again for contacting me.

Rick and Roll
04-17-2007, 06:51 AM
I got a myspace bulletin from a band who actually drafted a release form to have their music played on internet radio. I hope to hell it doesn't come to that for everyone.

I find it upsetting that anyone can cover a song in concert or just messing around but it can't be broadcast w/o some entity sitting there with their hand out. I thought air was free.

If it does comes to a worst-case scenario (which for the record I do not think will happen), I propose we make the Aural Moon a big forum and link for musicians and fans to discuss and share their thoughts on music. Which it is now + music. Then we can be ready once the laws change again.

MrMagoo
04-17-2007, 11:29 AM
The judge refused to reconsider the previous ruling on Monday, so 5/15 is doomsday unless the Congress-critters decide to play

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070416/internet_radio.html

Ted
04-17-2007, 11:39 AM
The judge refused to reconsider the previous ruling on Monday, so 5/15 is doomsday unless the Congress-critters decide to play

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070416/internet_radio.html

Goo,

Thanks for posting this... 5/15 is looking like a VERY dark day...

Regards,
Ted:eek:

Rick and Roll
04-17-2007, 11:51 AM
The judge refused to reconsider the previous ruling on Monday, so 5/15 is doomsday unless the Congress-critters decide to play

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070416/internet_radio.html

I don't understand fully we're considered the same as live 365 etc. We accept no advertising and receive no money on sales. Non-profit is a misnomer, they sell product. We do not sell product.

I wonder if the RIAA is fully aware of all of the song sharing out there. And I wish bands would wake up and see what's going on. They're all trying to be so bent on making it big (ie Magenta) that they don't realize what a benefit internet radio is, and how their music is ripped off all the time with these websites that steal and re-sell their music.

The sentence about "terrestrial radio" is seen as a benefit to the artist (and we're not) makes me laugh.

This is my last post on this item. Whatever happens, happens. I can't waste any more mental strain on this stupidity. I'll do what I can, but I'm not hitting a gorilla with a pebble.

Let the artists take up the fight.

MrMagoo
04-17-2007, 01:28 PM
Non-profit has nothing to do with it. RIAA wants more money, and has already paid Congress for it.

That being said, I've just read & digested (with Rolaids) the actual CRB rates findings at:
http://www.loc.gov/crb/proceedings/2005-1/rates-terms2005-1.pdf

Warning: nasty legal shit quoted/summarized:


In summary, first, we determine that the minimum fee applicable to Noncommercial Webcasters is an annual non-refundable, but recoupable* $500 minimum per channel** or station payable in advance. <snip> Second, the following rates apply to Noncommercial Webcasters***: (1) an annual per station or per channel rate of $500 for stations or channels will constitute full payment for digital audio transmissions totaling not more than 159,140 ATH**** per month and (2) if in any month a Noncommercial Webcaster makes digital audio transmissions in excess of 159,140 ATH per month, then the Noncommercial Webcaster will pay additional usage fees for digital audio transmissions of sound recordings in excess of the cap as follows: a per play rate of $.0008 for 2006, a per play rate of $.0011 for 2007, a per play rate of $.0014 for 2008, a per play rate of $.0018 for 2009 and a per play rate of $.0019 for 2010.


* In effect, payment of the $500 minimum administrative fee by Noncommercial Webcasters whose monthly ATH is below the cap will satisfy the full royalty obligations of such webcasters because it fully encompasses the per station usage fee. <snip> Therefore, as a practical matter, recoupment does not come into play for such webcasters.

** This $500 minimum fee is applicable to each individual station and each individual channel, including each individual "side channel" maintained by broadcasters. "Side channels" are channels on the website of a broadcaster that transmit eligible transmissions that are not simultaneously transmitted over-the-air by the broadcaster.

*** Noncommercial Webcasters include such licensees who are eligible nonsubscription transmission services or new subscription services, irrespective of whether they transmit music in large part or in small part.

**** Aggregate Tuning Hours or ATH refers to the total hours of programming transmitted to all listeners during the relevant time period. <snip> The number of ATH in a month could be calculated by multiplying the average number of simultaneous listeners by the average potential listening hours in a month or 730 (i.e., 365 days in a year multiplied by 24 hours in a day then divided by 12 months).



The "average number of simultaneous listeners" comes out to 218/day, so AM may be marginal, or safe... for now.
Notes:
- I couldn't find out how AVSL is calculated, it may be in the original 2002 act, or one of the predecessor acts.
- the ATH bumber is being challenged, since essentially CRB pulled it out of their ass, but that won't matter in the short term.

Now back to your regularly scheduled headache...

PeterG
04-27-2007, 07:23 AM
Just saw this posted today:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/04/27/internet_radio_equality_act_introduced/

A bill introduced in Congress today could nullify the new rates set by the Copyright Royalty Board (CRB) which advocates say would put webcasters out of business.
Rep. Jay inslee (D-WA) and Rep. Don Manzullo (R-IL) have headed the "Internet Radio Equality Act," which aims to stop the controversial March 2 decision which puts royalty of a .08 cent per song per listener, retroactively from 2006 to 2010 on internet radio.

Advocates have dreaded the CRB ruling, which they say could raise rates between 300 to 1200 per cent for webcasters. Earlier this month, the CRB threw out an appeal by commercial webcasters, National Public Radio and others to review the new rates and postpone a May 15 deadline for the introduction of the royalty schedule.
If passed, today's bill would set new rates at 7.5 per cent of the webcaster's revenue— the same rate paid by satellite radio. Alternatively, webcasters could decide to pay 33 cents per hour of sound recordings transmitted to a single user.
"The illogical and unrealistic royalty rates set by the CRB have placed the future of an entire industry in jeopardy," said Jake Ward of the SaveNetRadio coalition. "This bill is a critical step to preserve this vibrant and growing medium, and to develop a truly level playing field where webcasters can compete with satellite radio."
The bill would also reset royalty rules for non-profit radio such as NPR. Public radio would be required present a report to Congress on how it should determine rates for their internet streaming media. ®


This could be good news.

Keep the pressure on you senators to support this bill.


PeterG

jtmckinley
04-27-2007, 10:45 AM
Just saw this posted today:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/04/27/internet_radio_equality_act_introduced/

A bill introduced in Congress today could nullify the new rates set by the Copyright Royalty Board (CRB) which advocates say would put webcasters out of business.
Rep. Jay inslee (D-WA) and Rep. Don Manzullo (R-IL) have headed the "Internet Radio Equality Act," which aims to stop the controversial March 2 decision which puts royalty of a .08 cent per song per listener, retroactively from 2006 to 2010 on internet radio.

*snip*

PeterG

I have written my rep. Joe Knollenberg and asked him to support this bill, fingers crossed...

Ted
04-27-2007, 11:12 AM
Just saw this posted today:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/04/27/internet_radio_equality_act_introduced/

A bill introduced in Congress today could nullify the new rates set by the Copyright Royalty Board (CRB) which advocates say would put webcasters out of business.
Rep. Jay inslee (D-WA) and Rep. Don Manzullo (R-IL) have headed the "Internet Radio Equality Act," which aims to stop the controversial March 2 decision which puts royalty of a .08 cent per song per listener, retroactively from 2006 to 2010 on internet radio.

Advocates have dreaded the CRB ruling, which they say could raise rates between 300 to 1200 per cent for webcasters. Earlier this month, the CRB threw out an appeal by commercial webcasters, National Public Radio and others to review the new rates and postpone a May 15 deadline for the introduction of the royalty schedule.
If passed, today's bill would set new rates at 7.5 per cent of the webcaster's revenue— the same rate paid by satellite radio. Alternatively, webcasters could decide to pay 33 cents per hour of sound recordings transmitted to a single user.
"The illogical and unrealistic royalty rates set by the CRB have placed the future of an entire industry in jeopardy," said Jake Ward of the SaveNetRadio coalition. "This bill is a critical step to preserve this vibrant and growing medium, and to develop a truly level playing field where webcasters can compete with satellite radio."
The bill would also reset royalty rules for non-profit radio such as NPR. Public radio would be required present a report to Congress on how it should determine rates for their internet streaming media. ®


This could be good news.

Keep the pressure on you senators to support this bill.


PeterG


PeterG - THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU.... I appreciate ANY good news.

I have written my rep - Michael McCaul and even written my two senators -to encourage them to support the bill so that it might get through the house and have easy sailing in the Senate!!

Like Jtm - I am keeping my fingers crossed!!

Ted

jtmckinley
05-13-2007, 11:44 AM
First the good news, a Senate companion bill to the House bill HR 2060 PeterG posted about previously now exists:

http://blog.wired.com/music/2007/05/senators_introd.html

Now the bad news, a shameless propaganda piece in Business Week by the executive director of SoundExchange (the comments are more enlightening than the article IMHO). I guess John Simson is entiled to share his view, but Business Week should have given equal space to the other side of the argument, or at least done a little investigative reporting on the claims being made.

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/may2007/tc20070511_561641.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index _technology

MrMagoo
06-19-2007, 04:54 PM
I finally received a direct letter from my Rep, Jay Inslee, who co-introduced HR 2060. He suggested I contact everybody interested to have them contact their congress-critters & put the heat on them. Well, maybe it was stated more blandly, but I'm passing it on... do it! :)