 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 | Re: Interesting I know I'd be thrilled to have the government tell me what my revenue rate can be... | |
|
| | 
Jehu
Premium
join:2002-09-13
MA
| Re: Interesting 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
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| 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 | Re: Interesting 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 | |
|
| | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: Interesting 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 | Re: Interesting 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. | |
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
2 edits | Re: Interesting made moot by deletion above. | |
|
| | | | | moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| 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. | |
|
| | | |
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
·RoadRunner Cable
| 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). | |
|
| | | | 
Rusty Hodge
@speakeasy.net
| 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). | |
|
| | | | ChrisCowles
join:2003-05-03
Gainesville, FL
| 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. But isn't the government, through the copyright board, already doing just that anyway? | |
|
| | | lesopp
join:2001-06-27
Land O Lakes, FL | Copyright law is all about making sure copyright holders are compensated it only applies to artists when they hold the copyright. | |
|
| | | 
major marco
Res Firma Mitescere Nescit
Premium
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA
clubs:
| 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
| |
|
| | | |
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Interesting 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. | |
|
| | | | |
| | | 
Steve
Pipe Wrench Fight
Consultant
join:2001-03-10
Yorba Linda, CA
| said by SRFireside : Copyright law is all about making sure artists are compensated for when you make money off of their work. said by US Constitution, Article 1, Sect. 8 :
The Congress shall have Power ... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; It's clear (to me) from this passage that the goal here is a widespread social benefit, and not to focus on a property right for producers of the useful Arts.
Steve — big fan of internet radio
--
Stephen J. Friedl • Unix Wizard • Microsoft Security MVP • Tustin, California USA • my web site | |
|
| | | |
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Interesting said by Steve :It's clear (to me) from this passage that the goal here is a widespread social benefit, and not to focus on a property right for producers of the useful Arts. Steve — big fan of internet radio Yes. Part of doing that is making sure artist's can make a decent living so they can continue to contribute their works to society. Copyright law was put in place to make sure artists aren't being exploited. You think it's bad now with the record industry. You should have seen it before copyright law. The RIAA is like a rabid poodle compared to the bloodthirsty and savage animals they were before. | |
|
| 
supergirl
join:2007-03-20
Pensacola, FL | 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. | |
|
| | 
ib50MbSoon
Formerly TwoKDialup
Premium
join:2002-06-07
Coloma, MI
| Re: Interesting 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 | |
|
| | | RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
·AT&T Midwest
| Re: Interesting 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. | |
|
| | | |
ib50MbSoon
Formerly TwoKDialup
Premium
join:2002-06-07
Coloma, MI
1 edit | 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 | |
|
| | | | | RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | Re: Interesting My buddy? I thought he was your love puppy.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. | |
|
| |
kaila
join:2000-10-11
Lincolnshire, IL
clubs:
| I hope this bill makes it in time....... or we all lose. Including the RIAA which basically would walk away from money on the table as it stands currently.
I didn't think the RIAA/satellite royalty terms were publicly available (non-disclosure agreement). But I think 7.5%*R is an amount almost everyone can live with. | |
|
|
| 
gwbuffalo
join:2001-12-08
Mokena, IL
·Comcast
| Re: Check out this bill here Right, which they have no freaking power to actually do anything. It's a waste of time and the Dems should be flogged for this kind of crap. Take care of your JOB and get this kind of stuff taken care of!
--
Alt-This -- My Tech Podcast | |
|
| | 
jamez818
please hold during the silence
join:2000-09-18
Sunland, CA | Re: Check out this bill here What does this have to do with Democrats? A republican is in this bill too.
--
just whiners and complainers... | |
|
| | |
gwbuffalo
join:2001-12-08
Mokena, IL
·Comcast
| Re: Check out this bill here I meant the Dems trying to pass bills on where troops should be and shouldn't be. That's the job of the President and nobody else. They're wasting our time and our tax dollars to make a political statement. I applaud anyone on either side who takes this Internet radio bill and runs with it. The Copyright board's decision was absolutely insane.
--
Alt-This -- My Tech Podcast | |
|
| | | | 
ARGONAUT
got ping?
join:2006-01-24
New Albany, IN | Re: Check out this bill here You mean there not just rubber stamping everything the Prez wants?  | |
|
| | | | |
See 8 replies to this post |
|
AnonProxy
Proxy of Anon
Premium
join:2001-05-12
ß | WTF is wrong with this world Broadcast radio pays how much? I could see if these services were subscription based but none of the cool ones are they should have to pay $0 to the RIAA. | |
|
|
See 20 replies to this post |
|
ARGONAUT
got ping?
join:2006-01-24
New Albany, IN | What's the problem here? All they have to do is broadcast unsigned groups and not pay any royalties.  | |
|
|
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX | Re: What's the problem here? You pay royalties regardless. The only difference is the RIAA doesn't get their grubby paws on groups not signed on to their member labels. | |
|
| Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | unsigned groups would probally be more willing to work with the netcaster rather then rob them.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|
GovWatcher
@qwest.net
| Proper Role of Government According to 'The Law' by Frederik Bastiat, the proper role of government is the extension of an individual's rights to life, liberty, and property.
Would it be right/moral/ok for me or any other individual or group of individuals to enforce the regulations in this new bill? If yes, then the bill is a good one and our founding fathers would be proud. If no, then the government is overstepping its bounds. | |
|
pokesph
It Is Almost Fast
Premium
join:2001-06-25
Sacramento, CA
clubs: | 7.5% sounds good to me..
7.5% of nothing is ummm.. lemme check my handy calculator.. umm nothing!
so if you make $0 from your webcasting you pay $0 in fees.. right? | |
|
|
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX | Re: 7.5% In a word... yes. | |
|
| |
Comrade Karl
@verizon.net | Re: 7.5% Paying nothing sounds great.
But why stop with music?
Maybe we should have the Congress pass a law capping the prices of EVERYTHING at zero.
Who wouldn't want that? | |
|
| | |
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: 7.5% The trick here is how copyright law works. The whole point of it is to help promote artists by protecting them from exploitation. If you make money off of an artist's work you should pay that artist a piece of your profits. You make nothing from the artist's work then I suppose the artist can't complain, but I'm sure you have to make absolutely nothing in order to satisfy copyright law. That means you made absolutely no revenue. Not that you broke even with expenses and income. | |
|
| RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | The pending bill includes a minimum annual fee of $500. The RIAA-backed CRB decision had that at $500 per month.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. | |
|
bigjimc
join:2003-04-21
Middleboro, MA
 ·Verizon FIOS
| Music Industry Control The Music Industry does not want anyone they cannot control to broadcast music in any way.
They want to control what people play (artist airplay rotations per week). If they put the independent none traditional radio stations out of business then so be it. They would rather keep the control.
This legislation would cut the legs from the music industry from getting their desired rotations per week.
--
Just my 2 cents...Flame Lightly... | |
|
|
|
|
|
Bill Could Save Internet Radio
Check out this bill here
·
The Sound Exchange (RIAA) *spin* on this bill....