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!: