Re: This does not look good for us...
 

http://www.soundexchange.com/index.html


from the soundexchange website:

What royalties does SoundExchange administer?
SoundExchange collects and distributes royalties from statutory licenses, including:

Digital cable and satellite television services (Music Choice and Muzak)
Noninteractive "webcasters" (including original programmers and retransmissions of FCC-licensed radio stations by aggregators)
Satellite radio services (XM and SIRIUS)


I don't think we fall under this group, but it looks like the radio on your cable service will now be a pay service.

Re: This does not look good for us...
 

Important email addresses:

US Senators
http://www.senate.gov/general/contac...nators_cfm.cfm

US Senators and Congressmen/women/other
http://www.webslingerz.com/jhoffman/congress-email.html


Write a letter, polite and concise.

PeterG

Re: This does not look good for us...
 

Hello,

"Noninteractive "webcasters" (including original programmers and retransmissions of FCC-licensed radio stations by aggregators)"

I think we're this. I am watching this and hoping too, which is all I can do as a Canook. If you need help Jim, just ask.

Regards,
Sean

Re: This does not look good for us...
 

So that's why you ran away to Canada, eh?
;) ;)

Re: This does not look good for us...
 

If there are any AM listeners who also happen to be lawyers, please send me a private message. It would be better if you were a US lawyer, but a foreign lawyer still might help a lot.

pdj

Re: This does not look good for us...
 

Jim,

Strange as this may seem, I read many of the legal newsgroups each day. There are lawyers that post and answer questions on these newsgroups. If you have a specific question, that might be the place to ask. You might even get one to assist pro bono; albeit, lawyers are not as altruistic as we are. ;)

Re: This does not look good for us...
 

Hey Jim,

I'm glad to see that you are considering only the removal of the material that this stupid law would apply to. I presume that the indies are not included? If so, that's better than it first looked. There really is a lot of good indie prog matgerial out there, and it would be great if we can continue to hear it on AM.

Re: This does not look good for us...
 

This is the letter that I sent to my Senators and Congressman.

Please send some communication to your senators. Most politicians will respond to voter pressure and if ALL the users of All the stations started "popping off an email"... that would be a significant voice.

Feel free to copy, (correct :eyes: ) or use any part of my letter.

PeterG

-+-+--+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-

Congressman Tierney,

I am writing to express my concern about the U.S. Copyright Royalty Boards decision to impose new royalty rates on the Internet Radio which will, effectively, bankrupt and shut down most small stations.

I fear that without congressional intervention, independent broadcasting will be muted by the 'corporate broadcasting giants'.

I listen to a station that plays progressive rock. This genre gets NO airplay on commercial stations. Many people who do not want to hear Britney Spears or the latest boy-band (or RAP, heaven help us) have nowhere to turn in this age of corporate mega-mergers and the dumbing down of music for a #1 Pop Hit. Listeners who have different tastes... like banjo music or new age music, accordion, Irish or anything out of the commercial definition of popular will be out of luck.

I think that these broadcast mega-companies want to control all media and are looking at this as a way to put small broadcasters out of business. I also think that this current administration has been TOO friendly to big-business and does not care about the 'common' citizen.

Please raise this issue amongst your other congressmen as there are a significant number of Americans (and world listeners, for that matter) that depend on Internet radio. Is this the image we want to project globally?

The station I listen to has already started discussions of which country to move the servers to. (after all the Internet is global and we will be able to hear it no matter where the server is) This should not have to happen.

Please help keep the diversity of Internet radio alive.

Thank-you


Peter

Re: This does not look good for us...
 

Thanks for the effort Peter! ....I would capitalize Congress and eliminate the part about Rap (to change the tone a bit).

The issue applies to all genres of music....

Perhaps a statement on how none of this money will flow to the arists.

kirk, where you been? You must have a good opinion...

Re: This does not look good for us...
 

I like your bit about RAP and would suggest you keep it and even elaborate. That cRAP is ruining the minds of today's youth.

However, Rick's second suggestion is great. I wonder how many in congress know that most (nearly all) of this money got to the record co.s and not the artists signed to said record co.s. -- The big co.s not the small record co.s with which most of us here are familar.

Re: This does not look good for us...
 

I'm not fond of the tone of the letter. Many of the comments referring to people's tastes in music imply that those who enjoy music they can hear on the radio are the 'dumbed down'. That kind of tone is snobbish, and not something very prudent to state especially when considering the person you're writing to just might be one of the 'dumbed down'. In addition, there are a few shots towards larger corporations. I understand the desire to insert this kind of emotion and 'color' in a letter such as this, but I think it distracts too much from the point, which is the desire to keep independent internet radio stations such as this one running, and free of charge.

Regardless of the size of the corporations and entities we're referring to, labels, publishing companies, and artists have a right to make money off of the work that is recorded, issued and distributed around the world. Personally, I think this is the wrong way of going about doing business, but I suppose I do understand the desire to collect fees for what is essentially an 'unsanctioned broadcasting' of material they have the rights to.

Anyway, I hope this doesn't affect small stations like the Moon, but if does, I'm sure there will be a template or model of how to deal with it as there are thousands of internet radio stations in the same boat. And the corporations would be foolish to let those all disappear.

Re: This does not look good for us...
 

However, the artists are not the ones receiving the lion's share of these new fees.

The RIAA has gone after people sharing music illegally. None of the monies received in "punitive" damages has made its way to the pockets of the artists; I'll refrain from comments on the pockets of the lawyers which prosecuted those cases and claims.

Re: This does not look good for us...
 

Good points Rick and VAX. (and Cozy)
(I put the rap part in because... i think it is crap... but more importantly I'll bet that MY senators hate it too. what it sounds like, what it is saying to the youth, etc...)

I realize that my letter is not for everyone... the tone, the jokes, the poke at the current administration... I also do not expect all to agree on what and how the message is communicated. I do think, however, that we all need to be active in out protest and not just 'let this happen' without even a whimper.

For those who have not written yet, copy, paste, edit or embellish and send.

Also, if any of you participate in any other internet forums, please post a letter, links and a plea to those users to write.

Re: This does not look good for us...
 

Thank you Cozy - you're right on point. Distracting from the point is deadly, especially when you only get one shot.

Enough of the lawyer jokes....think of it this way. In any legal action, you need someone who is "harmed". Who is being harmed with internet radio? If anything, more good is done, by promoting artists.

So I would say to these companies (and this is how I would approach a lawmaker)...."What harm is done by the current system", and more importantly, "Why should these companies benefit"? They were not harmed nor are we benefitting (in fact Jim and vax are losing money).

Why are they entitled to our money?

Jokes, taking sides, etc - irrelevant - the point should remain - why mess with the current system? Also, not being a "sexy" or hot button issue can only help. Congress has other things to do (now insert joke).

Re: This does not look good for us...
 

Short, succinct and focused is the best way to get through to them.

There was no joke! Sadly, the lawyers make the money; not the defendants they represent or would appear to represent.

True on all points.


Like fuckup time? :D

In my "district", our congressman Chris Smith[R] takes time to setup public meetings. In my town, he seems to be here about 4 times a year to speak with the people. Sadly, this issue just came to light after his most recent visit. If you have such an opportunity in your area/district, meet with your rep(s). Bring a letter along and meet your rep. and personally deliver the letter while you speak with him/her.

Re: This does not look good for us...
 

In addition to writing your members of congress I would suggest alerting the blogosphere, which is something even us non-Americans can help with. Public awareness will help get a lot more people to fight this.

Regards,
Sean

Re: This does not look good for us...
 

Progressive Ears has a few things going on on this front too. I'm sure Sean knows this. ;)

Re: This does not look good for us...
 

http://savenetradio.org/

http://www.house.gov/writerep/