moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD | Interesting
Now Congress is looking into the whole thing. Seems maybe a few letters made it far enough to at least shed light on the issue. |
|
Cabal
Premium
join:2007-01-21
Boston, MA | I know I'd be thrilled to have the government tell me what my revenue rate can be... |
|
supergirl
join:2007-03-20
Pensacola, FL | reply to moonpuppy
If 99% of these outfits barely make enough cash to pay expenses, why is the RIAA worrying about them?
With EMI allowing DRM-free music, I think the cracks in the RIAA's ruthless tactics are showing. |
|
Jehu
Premium
join:2002-09-13
MA
| reply to Cabal
said by Cabal  :I know I'd be thrilled to have the government tell me what my revenue rate can be...
--
The worm he licks my bones |
|
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
| reply to Cabal
said by Cabal :I know I'd be thrilled to have the government tell me what my revenue rate can be... Copyright law is all about making sure artists are compensated for when you make money off of their work. It's only fair that you pay a percentage of what you make when you the money you make relies on other people's material. What would you rather have? A per song charge that will suck the life out of a webcaster's livelihood or paying less than 10% of the money you bring in?
In regards to cost of doing business the latter is way more doable and fair. |
|
Jehu
Premium
join:2002-09-13
MA | I'd rather have congress stay the hell out of telling businesses what those busninesses can and can't charge for their services.
--
The worm he licks my bones |
|
ib50MbSoon
Formerly TwoKDialup
Premium
join:2002-06-07
Coloma, MI
| reply to supergirl
From: »www.theregister.com/2007/04/27/i···roduced/
"Rep. Jay inslee (D-WA) and Rep. Don Manzullo (R-IL) have headed the "Internet Radio Equality Act," which aims to stop the controversial March 2 decision which puts royalty of a .08 cent per song per listener, retroactively from 2006 to 2010 on internet radio."
Retroactively? To Jan 2006? Damn!
--
Meet Bill and Karolyn at www.theslowskys.com |
|
lesopp
join:2001-06-27
Land O Lakes, FL | reply to SRFireside
Copyright law is all about making sure copyright holders are compensated it only applies to artists when they hold the copyright. |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
 ·AT&T Midwest
| reply to ib50MbSoon
Yeah, the old rate expired over a year ago. Takes them awhile to get around to this sort of thing. The retroactivity was a major issue, since some stations would have had to come up with almost a half million dollars in additional fees that they were not expecting to have to pay, by May 15.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to Jehu
Then there is a heck of a lot more they need to stay out of too.
7.5% is something to bitch at? That's the sales tax in my home town in California. Less than 10% expense to leech off a product to make money? What are internet radio "broadcasters" wanting out of this? Free content?
To be honest, I'm getting sick of the so-called innovators who are taking other people's work and property, making a "business" out of it, and then complaining when the true owner wants to be compensated.
Open a bakery store to sell your goods and see what you do when someone comes in and starts selling your bread and doesn't want to pay you for it.
All the government is being asked of / or doing is settling a dispute from where laws are unclear.. ie: doing their job for once.
7.5% is not unfair.
People often confuse theft with innovation...
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-reitchous and lazy..." |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | Did you read the fucking article before you vomited that comment?
The CRB wanted over 100%. This bill puts Internet radio onto the same schedule Satellite radio pays.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
| reply to Jehu
Excuse me, but when you are in business to make money off of other people's work you better be sure to compensate that person. At least this new legislation proposed makes the compensation fair so that the business can still do what they do.
said by Jehu :I'd rather have congress stay the hell out of telling businesses what those busninesses can and can't charge for their services. Where in the world do you get the notion that royalty payments dictate what businesses can charge for their service? Royalties only dictate what you have to pay for to use the copyrighted material. You charge what you want. The debate here is how much your overhead will be. With this legislation you pay a percentage of your business income instead of a flat fee per song (which would kill small businesses). |
|
laizure
join:2006-08-13
Mountain View, CA
1 edit | reply to moonpuppy
g
q |
|
ib50MbSoon
Formerly TwoKDialup
Premium
join:2002-06-07
Coloma, MI
1 edit | reply to RadioDoc
Re: Interesting
Holy sh!t
The poor broadcasters will be doomed when they get the retroactive bill for using your buddy Ed's pipes. 
--
Meet Bill and Karolyn at www.theslowskys.com |
|
major marco
Res Firma Mitescere Nescit
Premium
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA
clubs:
| reply to SRFireside
said by SRFireside :Copyright law is all about making sure artists are compensated for when you make money off of their work. No, it's not.
From the article:
quote:
Stanford Law professor and copyright expert Lawrence Lessig writes, "Copyright has never accorded the copyright owner completecontrol over all possible uses of his work. Its purpose instead is to secure a limited monopoly over certain ways in which creative work is exploited, so as to give the authors (i.e., composers and performers) an incentive to create, and thus, in turn, to 'promote the Progress of Science'."
In fact, it's beyond argument today that the U.S. copyright laws recognize no absolute right in authors to prevent others from copying or exploiting their work. Rather, copyright laws grant authors limited rights in their works solely to an extent that Congress believes that creation and dissemination of their works are encouraged. In the long term, authors' intents and interests have always been secondary to that of the public.
The CRB, while masquerading as part of the U.S. Copyright office, is a wholly owned owned subsidiary of the RIAA purchased for the sole reason of strangling Internet radio. Terrestrial radio broadcasters pay no such fees. So when RIAA's Sim says they're fighting for the artits, the reality is that the RIAA is fighting to kill Internet radio. Period. Citing Copyright law is merely the means to that end.
--
The Toll
|
|
Rusty Hodge
@speakeasy.net
| reply to Jehu
The government has always ben involved. Copyright was created by the Government. They've always set the rate. However for this particular rate, the process involved a 3 judge panel and closed meetings, and in the end webcasters paid a different rate than satellite ratio. (Not to mention that over-the-air radio is exempted in copyright law from paying any royalties at all). |
|
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
| reply to major marco
said by major marco :said by SRFireside :Copyright law is all about making sure artists are compensated for when you make money off of their work. No, it's not. Citing an opinion from an article doesn't change the fact that the purpose of copyright law is exactly as I stated. Just because the RIAA is manipulating the law to circumvent its intent doesn't change the original intent.
said by major marco :The CRB, while masquerading as part of the U.S. Copyright office, is a wholly owned owned subsidiary of the RIAA purchased for the sole reason of strangling Internet radio. Terrestrial radio broadcasters pay no such fees. So when RIAA's Sim says they're fighting for the artits, the reality is that the RIAA is fighting to kill Internet radio. Period. Citing Copyright law is merely the means to that end. No arguments there. |
|
moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to fiberguy
said by fiberguy :Then there is a heck of a lot more they need to stay out of too. 7.5% is something to bitch at? That's the sales tax in my home town in California. Less than 10% expense to leech off a product to make money? What are internet radio "broadcasters" wanting out of this? Free content? To be honest, I'm getting sick of the so-called innovators who are taking other people's work and property, making a "business" out of it, and then complaining when the true owner wants to be compensated. Open a bakery store to sell your goods and see what you do when someone comes in and starts selling your bread and doesn't want to pay you for it. All the government is being asked of / or doing is settling a dispute from where laws are unclear.. ie: doing their job for once. 7.5% is not unfair. People often confuse theft with innovation... They are not bitching about the 7.5%, they were bitching that the webcasters were to be required to pay 100% more than they are paying now under the old agreement.
Imagine if a state or local municipality decided to raise the taxes cable companies pay by 100%. I am sure you would be in here ranting how the federal government needed to come in and stop the extortion. 
It would be stupid to put the webcasters out of business (which is what they would have done) since it is becoming a bigger medium day by day. Keep cutting up your audience and watch your profits go out the door.
This has NOTHING to do with innovation. Webcasters are nothing more than radio stations on the internet. They advertise to pay their bills as do regular radio stations. I fail to see the big innovation unless you are talking about streaming radio. |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
2 edits | reply to Anon
made moot by deletion above. |
|
