This does not look good for us...
 

As I read this, AM will have to pay for each tune played. Please, tell me I'm wrong...

http://blog.wired.com/music/2007/03/...yright_ro.html

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

God...

I remember reading a year ago about this measure on another radio's website and beaing flat-out outraged.

Now I just feel sick and downed. The worst part of it? It seems like I can't do anything as of yet to help.

DAMN IT!

Edit: This post should've been longer, but I prefer letting the emotions calm down before adding anything else.

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

It doesn't look good. If Jim has to cough up more money for AM there are only 2 alternatives:

1. shutdown
2. make listeners pay

There is a third but I doubt anyone wants to go the commercial/advertisement route.

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE!

Take some time and follow the LoC link in the article Andyyy posted and tell them what a BIG FUCKING MISSTAKE they are making.

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

I'd add my name but you have to be a US citizen to register :( We have similar things happening here with the govt. causing real grief to live venues. B******S!!!!!

I did a few calculations:

Using the 2010 rate of $0.0019 Per song per listener.
Assuming an average listening volume of 100 at any one time.
Assuming 16 songs per hour.

I calculated that Aural Moon would be charged $25,630 a year by 2010.

Out-bloody-rageous!!!!!!!

Was reading further and there was a good point made. Record companies, I'm sure, wouldn't really want the closure of internet radio.....would they? Think of the volume of sales generated by listening to The Moon. Perhaps they should follow the saying "Be careful what you wish for....you might just get it!!"

Of VAX's options:

1 - Unthinkable
2 - The most likely outcome IMHO. A difficult thing to measure.

As for the commercial/advertising route I'm afraid we may have to bite the bullet and consider it some way down the road. Sad but true. Hey Ho!!!!

I need a drink now.....

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

I just found and signed this petition...I can only hope it helps...

http://www.petitiononline.com/SIR2007r/petition.html

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

Yes, I should have mentioned that this is only something we can attempt to stop here on US soil...and you're right! How could the labels WANT this? I was just given some CDs by some friends to send to AM (ironic, the day before the bad news came out) and they (the artists) don't expect pay per airplay...they just hope to be heard and hope for sales based on that...leave it to corporations to screw things up!

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

VAX Wrote >>Take some time and follow the LoC link in the article Andyyy posted and tell them what a BIG FUCKING MISSTAKE they are making.


My suggestion find out the email to both your state senators and all the congressmen and CC them... THEY will respond to public outrage.

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

We could perhaps move the AM server to Cayman Islands, Andorra, Lichtenstein, or the North Pole where the RIAA can't reach.

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

A good share of this music I can't purchase or listen too where I live. Without the internet I couldn't hear it or buy it. Do they really think that by charging me to listen to and become familiar with music I've never heard, that they are increasing their profits? Preposterous. I purchase music, I do not steal it. Nothing thrills me more than discovering a band I never heard before, coming to love it, and then buying the cd's one after the other. I've done this many times. They are slitting their own throats. A station like this increases their profits. Short term gain long term loss I think. paw

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

yes paw.

Aside from making the music, isn't getting the music out to the public the #1 issue for musicians and their labels??

The Moon is a huge sampling machine for the musicians contained herein. It's a win win gift. We get to hear the music and then trot out to buy, the musicians get exposure.

If the RIAA thinks we're getting something for free and they and those they represent are being jipped, they're delusional.

The world is going to pot, and not the good kind. Astounding stupidity, but why am I not surprised.

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

Here is the act, which this bog is referring to:

http://www.loc.gov/crb/proceedings/2...erms2005-1.pdf

I glanced through several pages, get very soon very bored, as I as a non native did not understand everything well, but basically I think to have understood that these fees refer to commercial broadcasters. The Moon in not commercial, so I hope it does not apply.

Please, friends of the US, who understand it, read it through and tell us, if these fees affect the Moon!

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

I'm not a lawyer, but unfortunately I fear it will apply unless it is changed Lotus, I'm pretty sure AM is considered commercial even though it does not sell advertising to my knowledge. I imagine the Moon is not really who SoundExchange intends to target, but if AM didn't pay the fees Jim would put himself at legal risk and I very much doubt he wants to do that even though AM might be "under the radar". From what I know about it (not much), AM is already paying the current rates. So by trying to squeeze all they can from the bigger broadcasters they're pushing out the niche broadcasters.

The media companies are in a tizzy right now because they see more and more people turning to the internet for their entertainment and they fear their lock on the business is slipping away so they lobby US politicians to enact laws to try to keep their media business dominance. And this is the result, hopefully the US public can influence our leaders and get the law modified, but I'm not at all sanguine about that, especially since most of the US public is completely ignorant of the fact that this is going on.

FWIW, I added my signature to the petition link posted by Andyyy.

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

I've skimmed through it.

The assumption in all this is that the Moon is a non commercial station. Yes?

That said, and according to my understanding:

Non commercial webcasters are allowed an allowance of 159,140 Aggregate Tuning Hours per month before the "per tune" fees will kick in. If a station keeps below the 159,140 ACH allowed per month, the fee will be a flat $500 per year.

See page 58 of the document to see how to calculate ACH. I calculated 100 average US listeners to yield 73,000 ACH, well below their limit. I'm not sure if I'm understanding ACH completely though, or calculating correctly so perhaps someone else could also take a look.

See also page 61, 102 for more on ACH, and 106 as a synopsis.

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

I've been holding off because I'm not sure I can really add anything - we'll have to react to whatever is done. I doubt this will have a real effect on us, but it's all speculation for me.

Any consternation on my part would be a waste of effort, and preaching to the choir.

They ought to go after the pirates to sell CD's by the song BEFORE the disc is released. Seen that movie too many times.....

None of this money is going to the artists anyway, so it's patently illegal. Let them lock me up, I'm ready:surrender

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

I haven't had a chance to read the legislation and digest it yet. We are clearly non-commercial from a rational point of view, but I'll try to determine if we are from a LEGAL point of view. As you know, rational and legal are often exclusive.

If these fees apply to us, I would likely shoot for a third option - remove all RIAA music from the playlist. We have specific permission to play a lot of the music on the playlist. The problems would be the old classics - Yes, Genesis, ELP, Floyd, etc. There'd still be a lot of good music on Aural Moon.

I cannot afford to pay the proposed rates, and the work involved with charging for the stream, collecting revenue and paying the fees would turn an expensive hobby into a non-lucrative job, so that isn't likely. Same holds true with advertising.

The legislation doesn't make sense to those of us who like specifc types of music because it is strictly a business decision. The goal is specifically to drive internet radio out of business. If people are not exposed to a variety of music, the media giants can make their exorbitant profits by pushing a limited number of mega-star acts, and sell more copies of fewer recordings. I can guarantee you that the InsideOuts, Museas, Unicorns, Mellows, etc are against this. As are all independent artists.

I'll post again as I figure this out. But it is potentially a very bad thing. Please encourage anyone who cares to sign the petition, write their elected officials, etc.

Thanks for the support.

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

Jim, I think I can speak for all Moonies when I say whatever you need help with, whenever you need it, just let us know.

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

Mossy speaks for me Jim.

I'll contribute as much as I can afford and then some.

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

Thanks for the update Jim. As much as I'm sure most of us would hate to see the "greats" like Yes, PF, et. al. leave the Moon, if it is necessary to keep the Moon in orbit, so be it, we all got those in our private collections anyway. Thanks for your continued work to make this station happen. I for one will do what little I can to fight this nonsense by writing my reps. And if it requires more funds to support AM, I'm willing to donate as well.

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

Bring back Pirate radio! :D :D :D

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

said and done jim...i was absolutely furious the day this came out...done my duty cuz:rulez:

gosh took me nearly 15yrs to find this music again don't plan on letting it go without a fight :boxing:

lock & load folks :bang!:

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/