RED ALERT to Avian

[Lost Dreams]

This was forwarded to me by one of the other ytseradio djs. Give this a read.


http://www.techtv.com/news/internet/...374000,00.html


How is this going to affect Aural Moon?

[Avian(Admin)]

All the internet broadcasters know about it, and have been talking about it for awhile now. Amazingly, it affects us very little, at least for now. When I have more time, I'll explain it.

- Avian

[Yesspaz]

Name: Kyle Thompson
Location: shiver9899@yahoo.com
Occupation: Grad Student

I have a BS in Mass Media Communication, and I made an A in Media Law (one of the two hardest classes I ever took).

I saw this coming. I wondered how long it would take. Doesn't mean I like it. I'm a huge fan of internet radio.


In my opinion, labels and copyright lawyers should let this one go. What we have today is a stale radio enviroment, where the gatekeepers all copy each other. It is nearly impossible to find alternative forms of music (not talking aobut altrock here) in today's market driven world without going to the internet. Now, what has been my experience, as well as tens of thousands, if not millions of others, is that we go online, find a station who's profile we like, listen to it a lot, and consequently discover TONS of music we didn't know existed that we love, and bought way to many albums thereafter. When internet radio becomes something only rich conglomerates can do, internet radio will be exactly like broadcast - crap. The reason? Dramatically fewer stations will exists, and they will go for the lowest common denominator to get the most listeners, just like broadcast. Consequently, I think many labels will see a dramatic drop in sales of their "non-big-name" artists, and smaller labels who push many bands based on 10,000 copies moved will simply fold. This will seriously hurt the "art aspect" of music for quite a while. This will hurt music lovers, most artists (especially those who, because they are not acceptable sounds to the gatekeepers, will now not get exposure), and "art."


In the long run, I think the law should be revoked. I know it won't be, but I think it should. I've spent more money on records since I started listening to internet radio than ever before. I will not, however, pay to listen to it (or however they intend to raise the money - ads?). I think the labels and artists lose in the end, because the won't move discs.

[Avian(Admin)]

Here's the skinny:

The RIAA fee schedule posted is only for retroactive payments from the past two years. Now, and during that time, we are covered under a blanket agreement through Audiorealm, because we use their SAM software, and are DMCA compliant (we follow thier broadcasting rules, and have software that help us do it).

So, we're covered. Now, the lawyers go in and negotiate all over again for the fee schedule for future broadcasts. This is what will affect us in the future. But it hasn't been decided yet.

The time is NOW to voice your disgust with this decision. Although it will affect us less than other commercial stations, (we get direct permission from many artists and labels) it will kill a lot of good internet radio stations. You should protest strongly and immediately.

Here's the text of the PSA we'll be running starting this weekend:



If you like listening to music on the internet, listen up. It’s in danger of becoming the exclusive domain of big business.
The Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel, CARP, has determined
online stations must pay twice as much as regular broadcast radio stations for the right to stream music over the Internet. The proposed royalty rates in any case is way too high. Plus, frighteningly, CARP asks the webcaster to collect data on you, the listener.

CARP stinks, like bad fish.

If you like listening to music on the internet time is running out. Find out more on this station’s website or go to congress.org and write everyone from the President to your local representative. Tell them the Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel, CARP, must not have their recommendations implemented. It’s bad for small business, it’s bad for music and it’s bad for you.

[dinosaur]

I believe that artists should be compensated for their efforts whenever someone else attempts to profit by their work. I do not believe in downloading songs from the Internet for free. I have never done it and never will. It's clearly theft.

In the past few years, I have only purchased discs by some of the lesser known artists - because I like their music. I have never heard The Flower Kings, Tony Levin, Lemur Voice, Illuvatar, or even Yes, lately, on any commercial stations. If I only listened to commercial radio, I would have no knowledge of these bands. I agree with Yesspaz. Forcing Internet 'radio' to emulate broadcast radio will hurt the small labels and crush the only creative artists (IMO) currently working. BTW, I too, have purchased more music since finding these 'unknowns' on the Internet.

I am happy to hear that AM gets permission from artists and labels to broadcast. It seems like the best way for less-commercial bands to reach their buyers. In fact, perhaps THEY should be paying AM for the chance to be heard! (Of course, once AM starts making a profit, they should be paying the artists.) I realize that's a rather convoluted argument, but nobody said this was gonna be easy!

Let me get to the point I'm hoping to make. It seems reasonable for record companies to try to protect their investments (and profits) by elimiating Napster-like rip off sites. On the other hand, forcing non-profit sites into profit mode will do more harm than good, especially to music lovers. There should be room in the regulations for artists and labels to allow certain sites like AM to continue providing services without fear of Big Brother, aka Big Business, taking over.

One last point, if Big Brother forces you to collect info on me, I'm outta here.

[Avian(Admin)]

Internet radio is a broadcast, like any other broadcast. It bears no resemblence to Napster, AudioGalaxy or Morpheus. This ruling is about broadcasting music. The big record companies are using this as a way to keep total control over who broadcasts music over the internet. It's a power play of huge proportions.

Here is a great letter by fellow broadcaster Tobasco (Toby). It illustrates several great, and disturbing points.



---


Dear Mr. Sessions:


On Wednesday, February 20, the Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel (CARP) proposed new rates and royalties to be paid by "Webcasters" for the performance of copywritten material. As an American and a Webcaster I feel it is my duty to promptly contact you to voice my opinion about the extreme outrage the proposed rates are having on the Webcasting community and the need for serious reconsideration of the rate structures proposed.

Webcasting is merely a new form of broadcasting using the Internet as a transmitter rather than a tower as in radio, or satellite dishes as in television. Aside from the delivery mechanism, Webcasting is identical in every way. Yet the new fees and rates being proposed by the CARP along with the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) are forcing Webcasters to pay much more to broadcast, and to deliver more detailed logs for their transmissions than traditional broadcasters. This legislation will in effect suppress the very foundations this country is built upon - the freedom to pioneer new technologies and develop entrepreneurial ideas to their maximum potential.

Thanks to Webcasting technology, for the first time in decades the power to broadcast has again been placed in the hands of those who cannot afford to purchase a 100,000 watt transmitter and spend millions of dollars to compete with the major radio stations. Broadcasting has reached a new era akin to the days when radio began, when anyone could start their own radio station with a few parts and some electricity. Those days fueled an entire industry that has now become a multi billion dollar machine.

Through Webcasting there is a whole new machine on the verge of being created, yet the new rules and fee structures are quickly quashing any hopes of anyone being able to afford to pioneer this technology.

I know your time is valuable but let us take a quick look at some numbers:

The proposed fee structure is $0.0014 per song played, per listener tuned in to the station. For our math purposes, we will assume our station has 1 listener tuned in for 24 hours a day all year long. Let us also assume we play 15 songs per hour.

$ 0.0014 X 15 songs = $.021 X 24 hours = $0.504 X 365 days = $183.96 per year

So that's roughly $180 per year for one listener. Now let's look at one of the top independent stations on the Internet right now, Digitally Imported (DI), which is also mostly commercial free. DI has at any given time of day at least 2000 listeners. Over a year at the above rate this means they are paying 2000 X $183.96 = $367,920.00 in fees alone.

Does traditional radio pay that much in licensing fees for broadcasting their music to a much larger audience? No. Add to that fee the 9% fee for making "Ephemeral Reproductions" (or a digital copy on your hard drive) and you've added an additional $33,000 in fees. Do traditional radio stations have to pay for Ephemeral Reproductions? No. But they DO place their music onto a hard drive for station automation. Why aren't they charged?

The new proposed rules also require that the Webcaster keep extremely detailed logs of their transmissions - much more detailed than the logs required of traditional radio stations. It is assumed that the only reason the RIAA and the record labels wants to enforce such detailed logging is to enhance their own ability to market their own product.

While some logging is understandable, webcasters are being asked for much more than is possible to deliver:


a.. UPC codes of the music we play. What if the disc was given to us as a promotional copy from the record label? The UPC codes are destroyed on those copies so they can't be sold. What if we play music from vinyl recordings?


b.. The exact time a listener tunes in, tunes out, and the listener's time zone. Traditional radio has never been technically able to report this information and never will. It seems as if the industry has done just fine with rough estimation for the last 40 years. Again, it appears the RIAA and the major labels just want to use this information for marketing purposes.


c.. The unique user ID. For what purpose? The only way to accurately get this information is to turn a station into a subscription-based service where the listener has to have a login and password. Coincidentally the major record labels are all starting up their own such subscription-based services.


d.. ISRC Coding embedded into the disc itself. Preposterous. This automatically rules out playing any music from cassette or vinyl. It is also next to impossible to retrieve the ISRC coding from a disc without highly advanced CD players or other systems. Again the major record labels seem to have all of the ISRC codes from the discs they manufacture. Perhaps yet another ploy to monopolize the Webcasting industry with their own stations.

As a Webcaster I am not opposed to regulation and legislation. I understand the need for artists to get paid. However I feel this new legislation is helping the Big 5 record labels, along with RIAA, to monopolize an emerging industry. If this were allowed to happen when radio was first introduced to the World it would not have emerged as the industry it is today.

I also feel the money recouped from these outrageous fees would not benefit the artists at all, rather it would benefit the RIAA and the record labels. If one reads the fine print the RIAA can use recouped funds for operations without limit, and if they cannot distribute a royalty within 3 years they keep the money. Nothing in the legislation says they have to locate and pay an artist or prove that they even embarked in a search process.


It is difficult for me as a Webcaster to agree to pay such fees and keep such detailed logs when I have no reciprocal methods of accountability from the RIAA. I have no proof the artist is getting paid. If this new legislation is indeed designed to protect the artist I want to see exactly where the fees I am paying are going.


I urge you to speak out against this legislation on behalf of the Webcasting community. This is a crucial time for those of us attempting to create a new business based on new technologies.

[Yesspaz]

I agree with Toby and Avian here, that this must be curbed as much as possible. However, as one with a degree in mass media communication, and having worked in radio for five years and cable tv for one, I feel it is pertinent that I make one clarification...

Avian:

Internet radio is a broadcast, like any other broadcast.

and again, Toby:

Webcasting is merely a new form of broadcasting using the Internet as a transmitter rather than a tower as in radio, or satellite dishes as in television.

Not technically so. BROADcasting and WEBcasting are "technically" speaking and "legally" speaking two entirely different things. Why? Two reasons:

1. A little word we call intrusiveness.

Take for example, broadcast TV versus Cable TV. Television is broadcast. Cable is not. The difference is the nature of the medium. Waves come through your walls, whether you want them to or not. If you own a tv, you get certain BROADCAST stations, for free, but you don't get others. This is a BIG legal difference. Because of the intrusiveness of TV, there are certain things you cannot do on TV, such as have blatant sexual scenes. Secondly, there are physically a limited number of available signals out there, and must be shared between TV video, TV audio, radio, police, ambulance, fire fighters, and cbs. So, since there are only so many, they belong to the public. No one can OWN a signal. You get a license to broadcast, and you must serve public interests, ie. public service announcements, local news and weather, etc. Cable doesn't have to do this. Why? Cable stations are not a public commodity. Anyone can have one (if they have enough money). Also, cable can do certain things broadcast TV cannot. You can have playboy channel, unedited gory movies with all the language. If someone complains, guess what? THEY SIGNED A CONTRACT, agreeing to let cable come into their home, therefore the medium is NOT PERVASIVE. See the difference? Cable never does public service. You LET cable come into your home. You HAVE broadcast come into your home. If you have a tv set, you get broadcast whether you want it or not. If you have a tv set, you have to agree to get cable (and satellite, etc.)

Move it over to radio now. Broadcast radio airwaves are public commodities, so the ones with licenses to use them must meet public service requirements and report to the FCC that they've done so. Webcasters do not, because the internet is not a public owned commodity. Therefore, webcasters are not broadcasters. They are webcasters. If I own a radio receiver, I get all kinds of programming that comes through my walls. If I were to turn on a random station and here a porno production with screaming orgasms, there would be a problem. What if it was a child? IE, you can't to that on radio. On cable, yes, you agree to it, but not radio. This is the same reason that porn can come it through your computer. You SIGN a contract with AOL or whoever, and they are not responsible for conduct. In other words, YOU AGREE TO HAVE WEB RADIO STATIONS COME INTO YOUR HOME, but you do not agree to have broadcast radio come in. If you don't want internet radio, you don't have to have it. You can have a computer and never listen to it. On the other hand, webcasters, just like cable, can broadcast anything they want. I heard a song here on AM that had a f-bomb in it. Not on broadcast radio.

2. Broadcasting, by its nature, and its name, is broad. You cast a wide signal to as many people as you can, and hope you pull in listenters. Yes, you target and audience, but you want to make that audience as broad as you can, in your niche (niche is a radio/tv term meaning the demographic you are trying to reach with a given program (age, gender, socio-economic status, race)). However, once you hit cable and webcasting, you get what we call NARROWcasting. This is when you define your niche so narrowly that you go right at them and nothing else. AuralMoon narrowcasts. It has less than 500 listeners. Another example of narrowcasting is something like Lexx on the SciFi network. That show is aimed at 25-49 males, who are sci-fi/computer geeks, who have a fetish for sci-fi babes like Seven of Nine. That's a lot of people, but it is WAY more narrow than the target audience for a show like Friends. Lexx succeeds on cable, but would tank on broadcast. Likewise, AM succeeds as webcasting, but would die on broadcast. It would be very difficult to attract advertisers because of the smaller audience.


In conclusion, I'm not trying to bew a cad, I'm just pointing out that technically, webcast and broadcast are two different things, so legally, the laws that apply to broadcast DO NOT APPLY TO WEBCAST, that's why the RIAA can screw 'em, and the FCC can't really stop 'em. So when Toby says that they don't make broadcast do so-and-so, that won't wash in court.




I can't believe I've retained that much information since I had Communication Law. Dr. Fortenberry kicked my butt in that class.

Kyle Thompson, Yesspaz.

[Yesspaz]

I just noticed this...

Avian:

This ruling is about broadcasting music. The big record companies are using this as a way to keep total control over who broadcasts music over the internet.

If this is true, that the ruling is about BROADCAST, then, because of the above, IT DOES NOT APPLY to webcast.

Now obviously it applies to webcast because the whole debate is around this issue, but they can't call it broadcast.

[Avian(Admin)]

Whoa, Whoa, whoa everyone. I'm just used broadcast as a general term to distinguish between what we are and what Napster is. In today's terms, we are a webcast. Napster is not. This decision has nothing to do with the earlier reference someone was making to the RIAA clamping down on Napster and its clones.

Never mind the American legal system's definition of a broadcast and a webcast. They certainly aren't the gold standard defining what it is, what you can do with it, and why, especially considering their double-standard when it comes to sex and violence contained in such broadcasts.

Just because it goes through your walls, it's still just as pervasive as internet broadcasts. You still need electricity (which most of the world does not have) - which is almost always provided by a battery (you need to go out and buy those), or a -cable- routed to your home, and a special electronic device to receive and translate those radio signals into sound. As far as I know, Howard Stern has been coursing through my body for years, although I've never heard him without my "special box" that's powered by a chemical reaction or the cable that's strung into my home.

With internet radio, you don't necessarily need a cable (satellite internet, for instance), and you need an electronic device to translate the signal. Sounds pretty similar to me when you look at the basics. With the new internet radios they have now, you just plug it in the wall, and plug it into your internet connection. That's it - just like plugging in a radio and extending the antenna. In a few short years, at least in the developed world, I think the internet will be like running water. Something everyone has.


The RIAA already has a broadcast agreement regarding royalties. This CARP decision has to do with both traditional radio and webcasters using the internet to disseminate their signals. A few years ago, the technology was so new, the RIAA didn't know what to do with it, or what strategy they should pursue. They said to us back then "Okay, pay this small fee schedule for now, until we can figure out what to do in the near future." That time has come, and they want to take over. Witha big business-friendly White House, they probably have a good chance, too.

Avian

[dinosaur]

It is perhaps unfair to put AM in the same category as Napster. Any offense was completely unintentional. My apologies.

The point I should be making is this: artists and labels are afraid of the technology advancing to the point that electronic duplication will severely cut into sales, i.e., broadband broadcast (or webcast if you prefer) quality may rival that of CD's. I realize that mp3 files are not for audiophiles, (BTW, I've never been fully satisfied with the 96dB dynamic range of CD's, either) but many potential buyers are not nearly as discriminating as I am.

While it is not quite so easy to duplicate web streaming as it is (was) to download from a Napster-like site, I can tell you it is not difficult to come up with the tools to do it. Increased development of broadband duplication technology and its widespread application is inevitable - and will become as ubiquitous as cassette recorders and cd-burners. To combat this, encryption methods to thwart duplication is one of the hottest topics in many university Math departments, spurred by large grants from computer companies, electronics companies, and government.

Speaking of which, the question of Big Business/White House control is another issue entirely. I agree with Toby. Fees higher than 'broadcast' simply don't make sense. More important, there should be some assurance that the artists benefit, not just the labels (who, BTW will just return some of the money to the government in the form of political contributions in an effort to keep their monopoly, so they can afford pass it on to the next candidate, who...). As I said, that's another issue.

Eventually, I suspect that artists will make only a small percentage of their income from 'record sales' and will instead rely on live performances, pay-per-view, or Pepsi ads. Of course, this may well spell doom for the less-commercial artist that I prefer (and currently support by attending concerts and buying cd's). At the risk of repeating myself, I repeat: I sincerely hope there is room in the regulations for artists and labels to offer permission to sites like AM to continue to provide the service of introducing their work to potential customers.

[Yesspaz]

Avian:

Whoa, Whoa, whoa everyone. I'm just used broadcast as a general term to distinguish between what we are and what Napster is.

I wasn't trying to get anyone riled up. Sorry if I made ya mad there Avian (the all caps were for emphasis). I knew you were using broadcast as a general term, as is almost everyone else these days (because for decades, broadcast was all there was, so the term became commonplace). I was just trying to clarify the difference for those with no experience in any sort of radio, ever.


as to pervasiveness...

Just because it goes through your walls, it's still just as pervasive as internet broadcasts.

I think I was misunderstood. Internet broadcasts are NOT pervasive. You sign a contract to let them into your home/office, whatever. You AGREE to any content.

Also, Howard Stern has been coursing through your body. And you do have to have a "special box" to pick it up. But just owning the special box does not mean you agree to objectionable programming. Signing something is. (btw, Stern is one of those programming situations that really challenges what you can and cannot broadcast - imagine if he were on cable, what we would see... wait he is on cable)

Everyone likes to jump on the FCC, but they have actually become a lot looser since the reorganization in 1990 (I think it was that year). The standards for what can and cannot be broadcast have widened significantly, as Avian pointed out.

especially considering their double-standard when it comes to sex and violence contained in such broadcasts.

And finally... (I started to talk about this in my previous post)

With internet radio, you don't necessarily need a cable (satellite internet, for instance), and you need an electronic device to translate the signal. Sounds pretty similar to me when you look at the basics. With the new internet radios they have now, you just plug it in the wall, and plug it into your internet connection. That's it

Yes, with all of the many rapic technological changes, the lines are blurring. satellite radio, satellite internet, and pretty soon, digital radio (2006 or 2007 - I forgot - regardless, we'll all have to buy new radios, and the average person owns 11!) all make the whole legal parts of stuff cuh-razy.



Now this is all neither here nor there, because the issue is not about content, it's about royalties. I was just trying to point out the difference between broadcast and webcast and cable, and why since they are differently legally, the RIAA can in fact charge more than they do broadcast, because no precedent has yet been set. That's all I'm trying to do - nor more, no less. Sorry if I offended.

Yesspaz out.