Go Back   Aural Moon - Progressive Rock Discussion > Prog Rock Discussion > General Discussion/Prog News
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03-08-2007, 03:17 PM
mossy's Avatar
mossy mossy is offline
Patron
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Bright lights of the desert
Posts: 725
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.
__________________
Faffist
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 03-08-2007, 03:43 PM
lotus's Avatar
lotus lotus is offline
Patron
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 827
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!
__________________
Lotus
****************************************
The light at the end of the tunnel is the light of an oncomming train......

Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 03-08-2007, 04:26 PM
jtmckinley's Avatar
jtmckinley jtmckinley is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Farmington Hills, Michigan (near Detroit)
Posts: 365
Unhappy Re: This does not look good for us...

Quote:
Originally Posted by lotus View Post
The Moon in not commercial, so I hope it does not apply.
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.

Last edited by jtmckinley : 03-08-2007 at 04:30 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 03-08-2007, 04:52 PM
mossy's Avatar
mossy mossy is offline
Patron
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Bright lights of the desert
Posts: 725
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.
__________________
Faffist
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 03-08-2007, 05:23 PM
Rick and Roll's Avatar
Rick and Roll Rick and Roll is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Baltimore suburbs
Posts: 5,039
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
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:22 PM.