Old 16th April 2007, 20:38   #161
Greg_E
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 1,687
It's hard to come up with anything to say about this. This just sucks!

Better start saving your pennies, there are going to want the money from last year and the first half of this straight away.

Your mileage may vary!
Greg_E is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th April 2007, 22:01   #162
SorceryKid
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 294
Greg_E:

There is still the possibility of an appeal, but I'm placing my bets on Congressional intervention. It's our best hope at this juncture.

--Randall
SorceryKid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th April 2007, 22:29   #163
Greg_E
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 1,687
In the grand scheme of things, I doubt the court of appeals will entertain this case. No laws have been broken, no constitutional violations, it's just business. Maybe if enough people in the House and Senate get involved, they can force a change, but they aren't having much luck keeping the gasoline companies from ripping us off.

Well I hope Sound Exchange sends us a bill to let us know that wee have another $250 to pay for this year. Everytime I bring up anything about royalties things get a little wierd, so I don't even thinck I'll mention this. With the number of people that know about our stream, I wonder if it wouldn't be better to just run as a pirate.

Your mileage may vary!
Greg_E is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th April 2007, 22:47   #164
dotme
Moderator
 
dotme's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 4,024
Quote:
Originally posted by SorceryKid
There is still the possibility of an appeal, but I'm placing my bets on Congressional intervention. It's our best hope at this juncture.
Agreed. Either that, or a negotiated settlement. If the latter, I hope it's more permanent than the previous one.
dotme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th April 2007, 09:21   #165
CraigF
Passionately Apathetic
Administrator
 
CraigF's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Hell
Posts: 5,435
They're just going to push legitimate streamers underground.

CraigF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th April 2007, 18:05   #166
BigMike835
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2
Taking Actual Action

Has anyone ever thought of physical protest? In front of the RIAA headquarters or their affiliates in your area?

That's the problem with us internet people. We think the world is one way because we see it through the internet but the fact is there are millions of people who never hear about this stuff because they go through traditional media outlets to find out about things. There are a ton of free speech advocates out there that are webtarded and don't know enough about this.

This fight should be turned into a freedom of speech issue instead of "we really want to stream obscure music for free".

If they can limit something so apparently trivial as internet radio without any TANGIBLE backlash then what's going to stop them from taking the next step? The Holocaust didn't start at Auschwitz!
BigMike835 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th April 2007, 02:46   #167
Greg_E
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 1,687
You are free to talk about ANYTHING you want on your stream, and there is little that they can do to make you pay. It's the music that's an issue. So I don't see this as freedom of speach.

Though if you read through the rates, you'll see that they want to charge you for ALL talk radio and sports. How can they expect to claim money from your speach if you NEVER play music??? That might be the only way to angle freedom of speach into this.

Your mileage may vary!
Greg_E is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th April 2007, 14:38   #168
MegaRock
Forum King
 
MegaRock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Inside my water bong
Posts: 6,855
Send a message via ICQ to MegaRock Send a message via Yahoo to MegaRock
WE ARE OFFICIALLY IN DEEP SHIT.

April 16, 2007 – The Copyright Royalty Board (CRB) today denied requests made by DiMA and other parties for a rehearing to reconsider issues in its March 2 determination of Internet radio royalty rates. Without Congressional intervention, the decision – which is retroactive to January 2006 – will go into effect May 15, with royalty rate increases of 300 to 1200 percent for webcasters. It is expected that many of these webcasters will declare bankruptcy at that time.

Digital Media Association (DiMA) Executive Director Jonathan Potter issued the following statement:

“The CRB’s denial of a rehearing today is all but a nail in the coffin for Internet radio, and May 15 now looms as the day the music will die. Internet radio provides exposure and royalties for thousands of independent artists and labels that are not represented by broadcast radio – and last year, 72 million people tuned in every month. We call on Congress to step in to save Internet radio for the artists, the labels, the webcasters and – most importantly – the tens of millions of listeners.”

Please contact Ann Brown at (202) 478-6135 with any questions or to speak with DiMA Executive Director Jonathan Potter.

Megarock Radio - St. Louis Since 1998!
Tune In Now!
Corporate Radio Sucks! No suits, all rock!
MegaRock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th April 2007, 02:13   #169
DJTigger
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 41
Send a message via AIM to DJTigger Send a message via Yahoo to DJTigger
i am lookign to start a huge multicast per se with different stream owners to go out ovber multiple streams at once where the effects of this law can be talked through and at some point during ti do a black otu for say 3 minutes to emphasize the effect to the listeners!

wanna help? KGMRTIgger on AIM or djtigger@kgmrradio.com
DJTigger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th April 2007, 16:27   #170
BigMike835
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2
Quote:
Originally posted by Greg_E
You are free to talk about ANYTHING you want on your stream, and there is little that they can do to make you pay. It's the music that's an issue. So I don't see this as freedom of speach.
Freedom of Speech doesn't only cover talking. It covers all forms of expression. Sure you might not be the one making the song but you can't put on a song that expresses a specific feeling or point that you want conveyed to your audience.

Think about it. Rage Against the Machine's CDs were released on an RIAA member label. Now if their message was something you want conveyed to people listening to you, you'll have to pay an ass load of money just to convey that point.

The same goes for many groups with actual messages that you'd want to put out there.

This is DEFINITELY a freedom of speech issue.
BigMike835 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd April 2007, 18:08   #171
SorceryKid
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 294
Attention Small Webcasters

We're continuing to move forward with our plans for a full service trade association for small Webcasters.

If you are interested in becoming an associate member (that is, having full voting privileges, participating in regularly scheduled teleconferences, playing an active role in our standing committees, etc.), then subscribe to our free electronic newsletter. We will keep you informed as our upcoming launch date approaches.

We look forward to having you onboard with us!

Best Regards,

Randall Krause
Executive Director
www.smallwebcaster.org
SorceryKid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd April 2007, 22:08   #172
roshlyn
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Israel
Posts: 1
Send a message via Yahoo to roshlyn
Wrote to Congressman and got reply:

I wrote to Senator Norm Coleman of Minnesota, and this is his reply:

****************************
Thank you for taking the time to share your concerns with me regarding the Copyright Royalty Board's (CRB) recent decision relating to music royalty rates.

I share your concerns about the effects that this decision may have on web-based broadcasters. At the end of the day, it is important we find a proper balance between copyright holders and broadcasters.

While I wholeheartedly support the intent of the decision to protect copyright holders, I am nonetheless concerned at the potential impact the rates will have on web-based broadcasters to continue to afford to remain in business. If this were to occur, it isn't just broadcasters but copyright holders and ultimately the listening public that loses. It is my hope that this outcome can be avoided and that at the end of the day artists are compensated in a reasonable manner while broadcasters can continue to share the artists' work with the listening public.

As you may know, the CRB is responsible for determining rates and terms for licenses related to copyrighted material. On March 9, 2007, the CRB established rates for 2006 to 2010 on Internet radio stations. It was determined that companies would have to pay a per song fee for each Internet music stream with a minimum of $500 per stream. This decision was made after 48 days of hearings before the three copyright royalty judges that resulted in more than 13,000 pages of testimony. On April 17, 2007, the CRB judges denied all motions for a rehearing and also declined to postpone the May 15, 2007 enactment date.

Please know that I will continue to follow this issue, and I appreciate hearing from you. I hope you will not hesitate to contact me on any issue of concern to you.
********************************

Is it just me, or does it sound like this issue is dead?
roshlyn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd April 2007, 23:57   #173
SorceryKid
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 294
That's a standard form response. Don't let it deter you.

Take the advice posted on the Kurt Hanson site today:

Quote:
I couldn't agree more with Dean regarding his suggestion of persistence when dealing with your Representative and Senators. Be polite and respectful, but be firm, and don't take "no" for an answer. It's important Congress gets as many calls, letters, faxes, and e-mails as we can muster!
Randall Krause
Executive Director
www.smallwebcaster.org
SorceryKid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th April 2007, 00:36   #174
SorceryKid
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 294
Hey all:

Just when you all thought things might never turn around....

Get ready! Something REALLY BIG is about to happen tomorrow on Capitol Hill.

--Randall
SorceryKid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th April 2007, 03:00   #175
Greg_E
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 1,687
Hopefully it will work in our favor and not have someone's personal piggy fund riding with it.

Your mileage may vary!
Greg_E is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th April 2007, 12:22   #176
robertr994
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Waco Tx
Posts: 78
Send a message via AIM to robertr994 Send a message via Yahoo to robertr994
Quote:
Originally posted by MegaRock
A radiothon isn't a bad idea but the 'Day of Silence' got alot more attention. It took the agreement of alot of webcasters and it was either agreed upon to shut their stations and sites down for the day (with a message on the website why and how to get involved) or to broadcast all day without music of any kind and to continue to inform users what was going on.

The publicity that came from it was tremendous - even mainstream media like CNN had mentions of it and the not so mainstream media carried it heavily that day.

It might be due time for a Day Of Silence II because if we don't do something we will all be silent.
May 8th the day? I fully support a day of Silence! Even if things start looking up before then, lets keep it fresh in their minds

http://www.kwtfworldwide.com
Join Us in the Chat
robertr994 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th April 2007, 12:52   #177
SorceryKid
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 294
Quote:
Originally posted by Greg_E
Hopefully it will work in our favor and not have someone's personal piggy fund riding with it.
DiMA is only providing seed money for the SaveNetRadio Coalition. They have personally assured me that they have no specific agendas except to ensure the survival of Internet radio.
SorceryKid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th April 2007, 20:28   #178
dotme
Moderator
 
dotme's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 4,024
This seems like the right thread to say a "Thanks" to AOL and the Nullsoft team for posting the prominent warning regarding these rates at the top of the YP pages on Monday.

Thanks guys.
dotme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th April 2007, 22:44   #179
fc*uk
Moderator
 
fc*uk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Atlantic Beach
Posts: 8,127
Quote:
Originally posted by dotme
This seems like the right thread to say a "Thanks" to AOL and the Nullsoft team for posting the prominent warning regarding these rates at the top of the YP pages on Monday.

Thanks guys.
AGREED.

Thanks fellas.
fc*uk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th April 2007, 23:05   #180
MegaRock
Forum King
 
MegaRock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Inside my water bong
Posts: 6,855
Send a message via ICQ to MegaRock Send a message via Yahoo to MegaRock
I'm definately for the Day of Silence. It got alot of news coverage before and this time hopefully it will get even more because if the Day of Silence does not then we will have an Eternity of Silence.

Megarock Radio - St. Louis Since 1998!
Tune In Now!
Corporate Radio Sucks! No suits, all rock!
MegaRock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th April 2007, 02:36   #181
Exceptional
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 25
I am a bit tired of reading these new rates are the end of the Internet radio. How is the music industry going to enforce these rates when there are over 18000 servers? Servers located all over the world, most hosted on home PCs. There are so many ways to get around these rates; I do not even know why people are panicking. There are currently thousands of broadcasters who have never paid fees, and I have yet to hear the RIAA or any other agency/company go after these broadcasters. New rates are not going to change the fact it is almost impossible to police online broadcasters.
Exceptional is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th April 2007, 03:17   #182
robertr994
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Waco Tx
Posts: 78
Send a message via AIM to robertr994 Send a message via Yahoo to robertr994
Quote:
Originally posted by Exceptional
I am a bit tired of reading these new rates are the end of the Internet radio. How is the music industry going to enforce these rates when there are over 18000 servers? Servers located all over the world, most hosted on home PCs. There are so many ways to get around these rates; I do not even know why people are panicking. There are currently thousands of broadcasters who have never paid fees, and I have yet to hear the RIAA or any other agency/company go after these broadcasters. New rates are not going to change the fact it is almost impossible to police online broadcasters.
They wont be able to...BUT if they pick out 12 y/o kids, Grand mothers and dead people to sue over P2P...... They will find you, or my luck...ME

http://www.kwtfworldwide.com
Join Us in the Chat
robertr994 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th April 2007, 03:52   #183
SorceryKid
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 294
If I'm not mistaken that homepage message appeared as early as last Friday.
SorceryKid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th April 2007, 07:39   #184
struckpx
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 57
yes, once these go into effect i am dropping broadcasting internet radio. lol, i already lose a ton of money the way it is and if the damn artists think they need to make a little more money off of little internet stations, then screw them. they need to get their sticks out of their asses and start being human beings. if they are that anal about their music royalties than why even release it in the first damn place? just more reason for all of us to illegally download there crap in retaliation. jerk offs. i just feel for the bands that arent getting the huge media deals. they will lose a lot of opportunity b/c of this. well, thank you to our copyrights royalty board. bravo, idiots.
struckpx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th April 2007, 01:51   #185
Ocelot
Junior Member
 
Ocelot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA USA
Posts: 10
Internet Radio Equality Act Introduced in House!

News Flash: Internet Radio Equality Act Introduced in House!


From RAIN: Radio and Internet Newsletter:

The Internet Radio Equality Act has just been introduced (in mid-afternoon, 4/26/07) by Representative Jay Inslee (D-WA) [he's my representative! I voted for him! Da Man, from Washing-tan! (so chuffed, sorry, can't help it)] and eight cosponsors, with more cosponsors on the bill expected shortly.

The bill has five major provisions:

* Nullifies the recent decision of the CRB judges

* Changes the royalty rate-setting standard that applies to Internet radio royalty arbitrations in the future so that it is the same standard that applies to satellite radio royalty arbitrations -- the 801(b)(1) standard that balances the needs of copyright owners, copyright users, and the public (rather than "willing buyer / willing seller"). (For more detail on this point, read the recent RAIN issue on "Copyright law," here.)

* Instructs future CRBs that the minimum annual royalty per service may be set no higher than $500.

* Establishes a "transitional" royalty rate, until the 2011-15 CRB hearing is held, of either .33 cents per listener hour, or 7.5% of annual revenues, as selected by the provider for that year. Those rates would be applied retroactively to January 1, 2006. (The logic behind this rate, incidentally, is an attempt to match the royalty rate that satellite radio pays for this royalty -- thus the name of the bill.)

* Expands the Copyright Act’s Section 118 musical work license for noncommercial webcasters to enable noncomms to also perform sound recordings over Internet radio at royalty rates designed for noncommercial entities, and sets an transition royalty at 150% of the royalty amount paid by each webcaster in 2004 for their "musical works" royalty (i.e., to ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC).

Now that the bill has been introduced, the SaveNetRadio.org "call to action" is specific and direct: The site is now asking listeners to call their Representative and ask him/her to "cosponsor the Internet Radio Equality Act, introduced by Representative Jay Inslee." Once listeners click the "Call Your Representatives" button on the site and enter their zip code, they are given their Representative's House office phone number and a list of "talking points" to emphasize.

(go to RAIN for more info)

So, Shoutcast supporters--go! Do! Call! Get the support out for Rep. Inslee's bill. Show them how we do it in the Evergreen State. Yeah!

--
Ocelot
Lynnwood, WA
Ocelot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th April 2007, 17:31   #186
SorceryKid
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 294
I am pleased to see this bill was introduced into the House on such short notice. However, I have concerns where there is a percentage of revenue option (with no limitation on usage). Further, the the minimum annual fee has been substantially reduced for those Webcasters electing the percentage of revenue option, and it has been set at a predetermined maximum (which does not take into account inflation or other economic conditions).

--Randall

Executive Director, SWCI
www.smallwebcaster.org // Redefining Music Royalties for Small Webcasters

Legal Disclaimer: The information hereinbefore is not intended to constitute legal advice or consultation nor does it form a legally binding contract.
SorceryKid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th April 2007, 18:51   #187
dotme
Moderator
 
dotme's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 4,024
Quote:
Originally posted by SorceryKid
I am pleased to see this bill was introduced into the House on such short notice. However, I have concerns where there is a percentage of revenue option (with no limitation on usage).
The SWSA was similar, no? Under a certain revenue cap and you can elect the percentage option without limitation on usage. So this isn't a radically new proposal.

Quote:
Originally posted by SorceryKid
Further, the the minimum annual fee has been substantially reduced for those Webcasters electing the percentage of revenue option, and it has been set at a predetermined maximum (which does not take into account inflation or other economic conditions).
If internet radio revenue is growing at the rate SoundExchange claims it is, then their revenues will also increase significantly over the time period. They have nothing to fear.

The proposal is somewhat in line with existing Cable and Satellite fees. There should be no difference in the rate for transmission of a digital performance regardless of the transport mechanism used to deliver that content to the listener. IMO, HD Radio should also be paying. SoundExchange will have a difficult time demanding that the rate should be higher for one method of delivery of digital audio over another.

Of course, it's pretty clear that even if this bill survives the rigor of the legislative process, it's going to get pulled, twisted and rewritten with intense lobbying efforts on both sides. It will probably be unrecognizable by the time Washington is done with it.

It didn't have to come to this. SoundExchange asked for more than they expected, and got it - probably as much to their surprise as anybody's. Instead of accepting victory gracefully and then saying "Ok, let's talk about ways we can work together" they characterized the outcry as a "Disgruntled minority" and declared the rates fair. John Simson was quoted basically saying that maybe far fewer stations is a good thing. That didn't earn them any points with webcasters at all.

In the process of reaching for every last apple on the tree, they have toppled the ladder they were standing on. This, combined with their "too bad for you" rhetoric in March, doesn't generate a lot of sympathy from me at this point.

It amazes me that two codependent industries can't sit down and strike a long term agreement.
dotme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th April 2007, 19:36   #188
SorceryKid
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 294
Quote:
Originally posted by dotme
[B]The SWSA was similar, no? Under a certain revenue cap and you can elect the percentage option without limitation on usage. So this isn't a radically new proposal.
There is no revenue cap proposed in this bill. From what I understand, any Webcaster is eligible at their option to calculate their royalty obligation based upon percent of revenue. In addition, a Webcasters' expenses no longer factor into the calculation of his royalty obligation. This, I see, as an issue.

Quote:
If internet radio revenue is growing at the rate SoundExchange claims it is, then their revenues will also increase significantly over the time period. They have nothing to fear.
Indeed, if the projected revenues for Webcasters are accurate, then the minimum annual fee should in fact be raised to eliminate the most inefficient business models.

If the SWSA truly served as a precedent, then a $2000 minimum annual fee should be reinstated for all small commercial Webcasters. The streaming media industry thrived after the SWSA was introduced. So to eliminate specific provisions while maintaining others, appears to be nothing short of an expedient.

I see limited rationale for making radical adjustments (particularly reductions) to the rates and terms that were already in place for small Webcasters. While I can appreciate the desire for parity throughout the broadcasting industry, the royalty rates and terms for satellite radio are not a particularly convincing benchmark because the two mediums, despite their apparent similarities, are markedly different.

The Internet Radio Fairness Act should be nothing more than a stopgap. Any long-term solution should require the involvement and deliberation of all applicable parties -- including a broad cross-section of recording artists and record labels -- in the formulation of realistic rates and terms.

Quote:
It amazes me that two codependent industries can't sit down and strike a long term agreement.
I certainly concur.

--Randall
SorceryKid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th April 2007, 21:30   #189
MegaRock
Forum King
 
MegaRock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Inside my water bong
Posts: 6,855
Send a message via ICQ to MegaRock Send a message via Yahoo to MegaRock
Quote:
Originally posted by SorceryKid
in the formulation of realistic rates and terms.
I see this proposal as more than fair. Setting a two thousand dollar minimum is insane because it all but eliminates the hobbyist broadcaster and puts broadcasting into the hands of those willing to plunk down two grand without the possibility of recouping it. That then leans internet broadcasting to those with the money to invest.

Maybe one would say that there is no need for those hobbyists and that if you should be granted the right to use music in your business model then you should pay. But there are many businesses that use music in their day to day business - retail stores play it over their intercoms and Disc Jockey's primary business is music yet these groups pay little to nothing in yearly royalty costs. bars, nightclubs and the such also fall into that group.

I believe the royalties should fall in line with what other radio industries pay and that is a percentage of revenue. Terrestrial radio hasn't paid anything in their history and that doesn't seem to have harmed the music world or the labels and they make millions a year. Internet broadcasters are lucky right now to make a few hundred a month after costs and are expected to pay. In both cases we help promote music and put it into peoples ears.

A percentage of royalties means the more we earn the more they get. That should encourage them to help the industry grow than to continue to harm it. As far as the expenses in operating a station most of that is tax deductable type expenses so I don't have an issue with that.

At least as of now this is the best deal we could have hoped for. Now we have to hope the RIAA lobbyists don't tear this bill up too much and no backroom deals like in 2002 occur this time.

Megarock Radio - St. Louis Since 1998!
Tune In Now!
Corporate Radio Sucks! No suits, all rock!
MegaRock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th May 2007, 19:49   #190
CinderrrBlock
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2
Does anyone know. . .?

What if you are a non-commercial talk web station? Or what if you only play your own band's music? Do you still have to pay the $500/year fee?
CinderrrBlock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th May 2007, 20:00   #191
CinderrrBlock
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2
What if I had a internet radio station and it was just me and my guitar playing public domain songs like "Oh Suzanna" and "Jingle Bells"? Probably no one would listen to me but I wouldn't have to pay royalties right?? I'm thinking of starting a station that plays only royalty free material just to pi** off the powers that be! Anyone with me? Please reply.
CinderrrBlock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th May 2007, 17:45   #192
gameplaya15143
Major Dude
 
gameplaya15143's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Earth
Posts: 753
Proof that the CRB and SE don't care about small webcasters
Through the whole article, they try to justify the higher rates because the 'big' commercial webcasters have huge profits.

and this is just another reason why so-called 'retroactive' billing should be outlawed (if this would even be true since nobody has paid anything for the new royalty rates yet).
gameplaya15143 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th May 2007, 19:09   #193
radstream
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Where the rattle snakes roam
Posts: 116
Send a message via Yahoo to radstream
"Fair Use" loophole???

I was just pondering today... Reading of Google's temporary win against Perfect 10.

From www.newsfactor.com
Quote:
The Ninth Circuit disagreed that the display of a thumbnail constitutes copyright infringement. Among other things, Judge Ikuta noted that Google's computers only store the thumbnail images and not the full image. "Because Google's computers do not store the photographic images," she said, "Google does not have a copy of the images for purposes of the Copyright Act."
and

Quote:
"Google's use of thumbnails is highly transformative," Judge Ikuta wrote. "Although an image may have been created originally to serve an entertainment, aesthetic, or informative function, a search engine transforms the image into a pointer directing a user to a source of information."
I sit and ponder... Would a lower quality sampling of a song therefore be considered "highly transformative?"

Further, could the webcasting of a song be streched in definition, to be a cognitive pointer to the band/song/album/label? Maybe with the proper website setup and ads in the webcast, this arguement could be made.

Further I ponder, couldn't this logic be applied to the concept of ephemeral copies of music?

Comments???
-Ken
radstream is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th May 2007, 10:05   #194
bored_womble
Winamp's Womble
 
bored_womble's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Wimbledon Common
Posts: 1,100
i think there are alot of scenarios which are yet to be tested.

The main issue is not that what you are thinking is not feasable, and if done correctly could make a very good arguement for promotion and proving and avenue of revenue for the song/artist etc,

but

How is the site rated for providing such ?
who does all the checking ?

minor points, but used to great effect at the moment.

Until it hits any court it can only stay a ponder item, and to go beyond that would require $$$s to get into and go through a court.

BW

Without open minds the world will die. Open yours and correct the mistakes you are making right now.
bored_womble is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th May 2007, 21:29   #195
sputnik radio
Major Dude
 
sputnik radio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Dallas
Posts: 871
I am happy with WRWN my affiliate sponsor who has accepted the deal with Soundexchange.

It will only cost us the TRUE SMALL WEBCASTERS 10 bucks extra a month to be legit in the US .

I think what is going on here is the BIG WEBCASTERS are sh#%ting their pants thinking of all the millions they are losing.

After reading the response at SAVENETRADIO where they rejected the offer I am convinced that they are not truely looking out for the small webcast which is ME not L365.

Who do you have more pitty for ? The big company like AOL or whoever that will lose millions but still make millions or the TRUE SMALL WEBCASTER like myself who doesnt make a dime but must pay out our arses?

WRWN is accepting their offer . If you are making less than 1.2 million then whats the fuss? anybody making more that 1.2 million is NOT A SMALL WEBCASTER and I serious doubt has any concern for them either.

With WRWN I will be paying around 50 bucks a month to stream in 38 countries legally including the US. YOU CANT BEAT THAT WITH A STICK.


I urge the REAL small WEBCASTERS here to get with the program and Stop letting the millionair broadcast affiliates do your talking for you.

Good day

read more about it here: http://webradioworld.com/modules/new...m.php?forum=17
_________________
sputnik radio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th May 2007, 04:27   #196
SorceryKid
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 294
Re: "Fair Use" loophole???

Quote:
Originally posted by radstream
I sit and ponder... Would a lower quality sampling of a song therefore be considered "highly transformative?"
The rationale in this case was that Google's use of copyrighted pictorial works was both limited and transformative -- which not only fits within the principle of the fair use, but appropriately balances the public interest with the interest of the copyright owner (that is, users are driven more effectively from the Google search engine to the Website of the original work, which is beneficial to the creator and to the end-user).

Merely lowering the sampling quality of an audio file is not transformative because the purpose of the original copyrighted sound recording and musical work embodied therein is also to entertain.

Quote:
Further, could the webcasting of a song be streched in definition, to be a cognitive pointer to the band/song/album/label? Maybe with the proper website setup and ads in the webcast, this arguement could be made.
That's unlikely. The intent of a public performance is typically to entertain. To argue fair use, one should be able indicate a limited and transformative purpose. See explanation above.

Quote:
Further I ponder, couldn't this logic be applied to the concept of ephemeral copies of music?
An ephemeral reproduction of a sound-recording is usually necessary to enable a digital public performance. So the purpose is indeed limited. But beyond this, I do not really believe that the fair use doctrine plays a role in Webcasting.

Truthfully, the ephemeral reproduction right in sound recordings should be appropriately codified in copyright law as an exemption (that is, remove the royalty obligation).

Randall Krause
Executive Director
Small Webcaster Community Initiative
SorceryKid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th May 2007, 04:34   #197
SorceryKid
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 294
Quote:
Originally posted by sputnik radio
WRWN is accepting their offer . If you are making less than 1.2 million then whats the fuss? anybody making more that 1.2 million is NOT A SMALL WEBCASTER and I serious doubt has any concern for them either.

With WRWN I will be paying around 50 bucks a month to stream in 38 countries legally including the US. YOU CANT BEAT THAT WITH A STICK.
From what I understand, these "blanket" license agreements being issued by SoundExchange merely cover the creative works of SoundExchange members. There is no guarantee that any license agreements dealt by SoundExchange will adequately remunerate the tens-of-thousands of non-SoundExchange recording artists and record labels (including members of Royalty Logic) as stipulated by Section 114 and 112 of the Copyright Act.

Randall Krause
Executive Director
Small Webcaster Community Initiative
SorceryKid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31st May 2007, 15:40   #198
FS-Randy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 100
Quote:
Originally posted by sputnik radio
With WRWN I will be paying around 50 bucks a month to stream in 38 countries legally including the US. YOU CANT BEAT THAT WITH A STICK.
Right on their site, in BIG BOLD LETTERS, it clearly states US listeners cannot legally listen to their streams.

http://www.webradioworld.com/images/nousa_150X350a.png

I wouldn't count on the "including the US" part of your comment.
FS-Randy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th June 2007, 08:19   #199
dnewhous
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Cedar Rapids, IA
Posts: 87
How do the Europeans handle fees for internet radio?
dnewhous is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th June 2007, 12:51   #200
Pakistan
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 8
*crap removed*
Pakistan is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Go Back   Winamp & Shoutcast Forums > Shoutcast > Shoutcast Discussions

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

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

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump