Old 13th March 2007, 13:54   #121
sputnik radio
Major Dude
 
sputnik radio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Dallas
Posts: 871
yeah one thing i noticed unfair . Is they claim that they are worried about people ripping streams off intenret radio and thats why they have to raise rates to compensate for potential loss and all.

WEll now Digital Radio is taking over the airwaves in every major city . You can even buy recievers to put in your car. Terrestrial stations don't pay extra royalites but their digital radio signals are just as high quality and ripp worthy as the internet radio .

Go figure
sputnik radio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th March 2007, 15:10   #122
djevolved
Senior Member
 
djevolved's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: I'm not a DJ... I Just Play Music.
Posts: 265
Quote:
Originally posted by PC Radio Net
This isn't going to kill my station. I've been here since 1998 and have never paid one red cent for my station, except for 3 shows that I pay a small fee to download podcasts for.
that's the spirit, you were always the voice of reason!


Quote:
I agree completely - but that's legalese and a lot for the average listener to absorb. If the campaign generates a little traffic to inboxes in DC, and is able to help create some media awareness too, I think it would be considered a success.
That's really alot for ANYONE to understand, unless you're big into legal stuff, which is why this stuff simply surprises me. Well, I know they're greedy, so that doesn't shock me much.
djevolved is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th March 2007, 00:13   #123
gameplaya15143
Major Dude
 
gameplaya15143's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Earth
Posts: 753
Quote:
Originally posted by coorslytle
I was broadcasting to a bunch of my friends who I play online games with
Password your stream and they can't do anything to you. AFAIK you don't have to pay any royalties for invite-only performances.


Myself and my group here at my school who are trying to get an internet radio station started... we are looking into the possibility of not paying anything to SoundExchange at all, and instead just pay ASCAP and BMI (both of which have quite large catalogs.. SE doesn't even seem to have a list of who they cover). Of course we will need to consult an attourney on this, but I would certanly like to boycott SE completely, even if it makes running the station harder.
gameplaya15143 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th March 2007, 00:49   #124
Greg_E
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 1,687
Sound Exchange is the collections arm of the RIAA. Ascap and BMI and SESAC represent the song writers and performers, the RIAA represents the record companies (through Sound Exchange). To see the list of companies associated with RIAA, see the RIAA website.

From what I have uncovered (bring this to your legal council) for educational use you will want to go with the blanket payment to ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC which seems to let you do just about anything you want from public performance, to internet streams as long as it originates from school owned/rented equipment (servers/service providers). What you do about the RIAA payments is up to you.

You could elect to contact each record company and ask them for a contract to play their recordings (for free with no record keeping), and maybe they could even send you music to play.

You could pay the RIAA flat fee ($500), and make sure you do not run over the aggregate tuning hours and make sure to file the paperwork 4 times a year.

Or you could become such a popular stream that you go over the aggregate tuning hours and then you would pay the RIAA through the nose (or other body oriface).

If you have the time, I would recommend option number 1 so that you don't have to pay the RIAA anything, or keep track of what you play, how many people listen, etc... If you go with option 1 you might also want to make sure to say that yu have contracts with the record companies to play the music, and also put a statement about that on your web site. That might help to put off the "inquisition" if the RIAA starts to get concerned.

You will find the people at ASCAP and SESAC very helpful and friendly (at least I did), and I never needed to contact BMI. When I finally was able to get someone at Sound Exchange they were also friendly and helpful. All of them were glad that I was concerned about doing my best to stay legal and make the correct payments.

Your mileage may vary!
Greg_E is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th March 2007, 16:55   #125
Greg_E
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 1,687
This came in my email yesterday for Broadcast Engineering magazine:



Congress blasts rising webcast fees
Quote:
The U. S. Copyright Royalty Board (CRB) last week approved a per play rate proposal backed by the nation's recording industry that will result in significantly higher royalty rates for the playing of music on the Internet.

The new rules propose raising the amount that commercial Internet radio services pay to record companies by 30 percent retroactively to 2006 and in each of the next three years, through 2009. Each station would have to make a minimum $500 royalty payment.

Rep. Edward Markey, D-MA, chairman of the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, blasted the CRB's action. "This represents a body blow to many nascent Internet radio broadcasters and further exacerbates the marketplace imbalance between what different industries pay," he said in the "New York Times." "It makes little sense to me for the smallest players to pay proportionately the largest royalty fee."

According to calculations by the Radio and Internet Newsletter, an advocate for Internet radio services, the new retroactive 2006 rate would require webcasters to pay approximately 1.28 cents per listener per hour — enough to cripple some smaller services, the group told the "Times."

The CRB's decision is a blow to webcasters because it widens the gap between what Internet radio and satellite radio services must pay, RealNetworks general counsel Robert Kimball told a meeting of the Digital Media Association.

Bill Goldsmith, operator of Radio Paradise, an Internet radio service, said the new royalty rate structure would "wipe out" small, independent webcasters. He said his station's obligation under the rules would be equal to more than 125 percent Radio Paradise's total income.

The CRB's new rules are still subject to appeal.
Sorry I didn't post this sooner, but I didn't see it until just a few minutes ago.

Your mileage may vary!
Greg_E is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th March 2007, 20:44   #126
Jeeper One
Major Dude
 
Jeeper One's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Denver, Colorado
Posts: 1,055
Hi everyone:
Quote:
Originally posted by Goodtimez
Everyone Prepare to move their stream source overseas!
You may be able to move your stream to a host overseas, but unless you move your Internet connection overseas as well (Which doing so is most likely unlikely), they'll STILL nab ya!

Cheers

Pat (ala Jeeper One)

Pat Cook
Englewood, CO
Jeeper One is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th March 2007, 20:58   #127
Jeeper One
Major Dude
 
Jeeper One's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Denver, Colorado
Posts: 1,055
Hi everyone:
Quote:
Originally posted by rockouthippie
Is that gonna kill Loudcity?. I didn't mind spending $50 to put up my temporary Christmas channel last year. $500 bucks, well that isn't gonna fly.....
What were you running? Old Time Radio Christmas shows or Christmas Music?
Quote:
[/b]Man, the record industry is gonna keep me from spending my money with them no matter what I do. [/B]
Apparently they could give a rats ass if they drive themselves out of business Kevin. The investors will just simply write it off on their taxes and move on. They don't care.

Just my blunt opinion

Cheers

Pat (ala Jeeper One)

Pat Cook
Englewood, CO
Jeeper One is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th March 2007, 21:13   #128
Jeeper One
Major Dude
 
Jeeper One's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Denver, Colorado
Posts: 1,055
Hi everyone:
Quote:
Originally posted by sputnik radio
I think it's time we all find servers overseas somewhere like Barbados or the marshall isands or the isle of man or wherever the hell we can find that does not enforce laws with collection societies.
Sputnik, please READ my quoted comments below as posted above
Quote:
Originally posted by Jeeper One above
You may be able to move your stream to a host overseas, but unless you move your Internet connection overseas as well (Which doing so is most likely unlikely), they'll STILL nab ya!
TRANSLATION - Contrary to your belief, moving the stream WILL NOT make a difference.
Quote:
I am going to put a list together of alternative places to possible put servers up. If soundexchange wants to fight. I say we give them the fight of their lives. IM CALLING ALL SHOUTCAST HOST TO SEEK OUT SERVERS IN COUNTRIES THAT DO NOT ENFORCE OR PAY ANY ATTENTION TO COLLECTION SOCIETIES>

I know they are out there. Just got to pin down whic ones.
Good luck 'cause you're gonna need it.

Cheers

Pat (ala Jeeper One)

Pat Cook
Englewood, CO
Jeeper One is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th March 2007, 21:33   #129
Jeeper One
Major Dude
 
Jeeper One's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Denver, Colorado
Posts: 1,055
Hi everyone:
Quote:
Originally posted by fc*uk
The site http://webcastersunite.net has professionally made PSA mp3s available as well as banners in an effort to get the word out to the public and give broadcasters a central site to stay updated and throw out ideas ... They direct listeners to http://savenetradio.org to contact their senators and congress to change this legislation.
Thanks Fcuk. I'll be sure to download those PSAs and add a banner or two to my site.

You know, don't forget peoples. This whole issue doesn't affect just those who broadcast music. It also affects those of us like myself who broadcast Old Time Radio (the Internet Archive has a massive collection HERE) and other content that's either original or in the public domain. Only we pay a difference price. While we don't have to contend with Royalty payments, we DO have to contend with finding bandwidth to broadcast our Old Time Radio collections and original content on.

And because of these Royalty issues, it's not cheap as hosts have to price things across the board at flat rate fees just to stay in business, which of course is only fair between the broadcaster and host, but not in any other way.

Just something else to keep in mind.

Cheers

Pat (ala Jeeper One)

Pat Cook
Englewood, CO
Jeeper One is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th March 2007, 22:06   #130
Jeeper One
Major Dude
 
Jeeper One's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Denver, Colorado
Posts: 1,055
Hi everyone:
Quote:
Originally posted by robertr994
Well, I'm not totally pulling the plug yet.

Who is going to Washington to fight this thing with me?
lead, follow it doesnt matter but it must be done

Savenetradio.org , I'm running your psa's and flash banners, But PLEASE update your site with info for the listeners, Bands, and Labels to get involved.

I am getting 100% Support from several Labels who understand the Chicken and the egg concept, We are working on a counter soultion to offer RIAA thats more fair for everyone and wouldnt cost a webcaster any more than they already pay. So far EVERYONE is in agreement BUT we must make a showing in force in Washington.
You know what I think someone with a big enough station and bandwidth (Neither of which my station would qualify for BTW) should take the initiative to do? Do what WOLF-FM did back in '01 when this whole thing first started and have yet another radiothon.

And have one every year for which this current arrangement is good for.

With enough relays (And I'm sure I can easily get a few of my friends from Live365 on board too), we should make enough noise to get the attention of the cable news channels long enough to at least be a short blurb. Between that and G4 supporting us, we should get the attention of quite a few in Washington WITHOUT EVEN LEAVING HOME.

Not to mention all the PODCASTERS out there as well (Think Adam Curry and/or Dawn & Drew).

Just an idea

Thoughts?

Cheers

Pat (ala Jeeper One)

Pat Cook
Englewood, CO
Jeeper One is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th March 2007, 22:20   #131
Jeeper One
Major Dude
 
Jeeper One's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Denver, Colorado
Posts: 1,055
Hi everyone:
Quote:
Originally posted by coorslytle
Hey guys, just reading up on this and I have a few questions. I was broadcasting to a bunch of my friends who I play online games with and quit once I heard of this. (someone posted on our website) I don't make any money off of it and I don't have a license for it (didn't know I needed one) As of now, I have no plans of broadcasting anymore but I was wondering what I needed to do to run this correctly should I decide to do so. What if I make the broadcasts private?
Simple. Don't list yourself in a public YP.

In SHOUTcast, that means unchecking the little box in the DSP plugin that says MAKE THIS SERVER PUBLIC (RECOMMENDED).

If people can't find your broadcast without knowing the URL or having your station bookmarked in their self-created Winamp Favorites folder, there's no way the RIAA can find it either. Simple as that.

But again, that's all contingent on you not listing it in a YP - ANY YP.

Hope this helps

Cheers

Pat

Pat Cook
Englewood, CO
Jeeper One is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th March 2007, 14:46   #132
Rovastar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: London, England
Posts: 3,632
Send a message via AIM to Rovastar
Just thought I would would add to this coverage that it has been on the front page of slashdot today.

Here is the article there:
http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/07/03/20/1243251.shtml

"Rules are for the guidance of wisemen and the obedience of fools"

Visuals - Morphyre www.Morphyre.com
Rovastar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st March 2007, 16:39   #133
SorceryKid
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 294
Great link. That's the second time SlashDot has reported on this issue. The more press the better.
SorceryKid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd March 2007, 08:13   #134
George_101
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 14
Send a message via Yahoo to George_101
Sorry if this has been answered before, but I've gotta ask the question.

My SHOUTcast server is located in the UK, as well as my webhosting, and my internet connection is an Aussie one (since I live in Aus lol). Will I be affected by the new royalty rates?
And then there's the matter of my DJs from the US... Will that affect my station?
George_101 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd March 2007, 22:26   #135
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 Jeeper One
Hi everyone:Sputnik, please READ my quoted comments below as posted above[/b]TRANSLATION - Contrary to your belief, moving the stream WILL NOT make a difference.Good luck 'cause you're gonna need it.

Cheers

Pat (ala Jeeper One) [/B]
Actually your half right..... if you stream to a UK server your gonna get busted.


BUT if you get a dedicated server and install Sams on it along with your music, connect to it via remote desktop, the music is coming from the dedicated server....... pick one in Africa and have Hodgi maintain it LOL

http://www.kwtfworldwide.com
Join Us in the Chat
robertr994 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd March 2007, 22:40   #136
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 Jeeper One
Hi everyone:You know what I think someone with a big enough station and bandwidth (Neither of which my station would qualify for BTW) should take the initiative to do? Do what WOLF-FM did back in '01 when this whole thing first started and have yet another radiothon.

And have one every year for which this current arrangement is good for.

With enough relays (And I'm sure I can easily get a few of my friends from Live365 on board too), we should make enough noise to get the attention of the cable news channels long enough to at least be a short blurb. Between that and G4 supporting us, we should get the attention of quite a few in Washington WITHOUT EVEN LEAVING HOME.

Not to mention all the PODCASTERS out there as well (Think Adam Curry and/or Dawn & Drew).

Just an idea

Thoughts?

Cheers

Pat (ala Jeeper One)
That would be a great idea for Radio Paradise, I know I would relay it on mine for sure, and just about everyone else here would as well

http://www.kwtfworldwide.com
Join Us in the Chat
robertr994 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th March 2007, 04:36   #137
MegaRock
Forum King
 
MegaRock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Inside my water bong
Posts: 6,854
Send a message via ICQ to MegaRock Send a message via Yahoo to 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.

Megarock Radio - St. Louis Since 1998!
Tune In Now!
Corporate Radio Sucks! No suits, all rock!
MegaRock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31st March 2007, 02:37   #138
Exceptional
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 25
Interesting reading but many of you just do not see the bigger picture. The music industry suggested the higher rates because they knew quite well imposing higher rates would significantly reduce online broadcasting, and with luck wipe it out. The RIAA knew the majority of broadcasters couldn’t pay the new rates and that is the point.

Internet radio is the music industry worst nightmare; it is more of a threat than file sharing networks and BitTorrent sites combined. A user can legally record the stream of an Internet broadcast for personal use without recourse. A few years ago it was debated that since the broadcaster was incurring the cost of the royalties for each listener, each listener tuned in could record the stream legally because it was paid for by the broadcaster. Unfortunately for broadcasters stream ripping software has become all too popular and the music industry wants to put a stop to it. So instead of going after developers of stream ripping software, they are targeting the broadcasters.

But that is only part of it. There are other entities besides the RIAA who will gain from this decision. iTunes for one has seen a significant decline in sales the last 2 quarters due to the increasing popularity of Internet radio and stream recording. iTunes does support internet radio as we all know, but in their infinite wisdom they did not foresee stream ripping becoming a threat. Why pay 99 cents when you can get it for free legally?

December of 2006 I read an interesting article regarding Internet radio and how it is virtually an untapped market for advertisers. It is estimated that Internet radio could be a $500+ million dollar market. Now ask yourself this, do you really think terrestrial radio wants to lose advertising dollars to Internet radio? Terrestrial radio days are numbered, they have to compete against both Internet and Satellite radio, and any decision to prolong their existence is a blessing to them.

Internet radio wasn’t much of a threat in the past because broadband was expensive and mostly everyone was content with dial-up. Even if you did listen to Internet radio the quality wasn’t that great, so no harm no foul. Now more than 84 million US residents have broadband access, and more users are embracing the idea of listening to radio and watching video on their computers. With wireless networks popping up everywhere and wireless broadband services being offered by almost every major telecom company, Internet radio is now mobile. Once Micro-Mobile computers become cheaper and smaller, Internet radio will be in direct competition with Satellite radio. Internet radio is free, it is now readily accessible, and it is a huge potential money maker.


I think you might find the following link interesting, it is old but relevant: http://www.prweb.com/releases/nexus/...rweb450557.htm
Exceptional is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31st March 2007, 13:33   #139
dotme
Moderator
 
dotme's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 4,024
URL above...
http://www.prweb.com/releases/nexus/...rweb450557.htm
dotme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31st March 2007, 20:24   #140
sputnik radio
Major Dude
 
sputnik radio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Dallas
Posts: 871
I don't see how internet radio is any more vulnerable to being ripped than say HD radio , satellite radio or off the digital radio that comes on most subcriber TV satellite packages.

If they are so freaking worried about internet radio then I suggest they BUY US OUT. LOL

I will sale my rights to them for a cool million.
sputnik radio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th April 2007, 18:02   #141
MegaRock
Forum King
 
MegaRock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Inside my water bong
Posts: 6,854
Send a message via ICQ to MegaRock Send a message via Yahoo to MegaRock
Ripping from my streams is no easier than ripping directly from FM/HD radio. I crossfade all songs so no one will ever get a perfect copy of a song, sweepers and ID's fade over them as well so there is 0% chance of anyone getting a full perfect copy of a file.

In fact from what I've tried I can actually rip a more perfect copy from FM or satellite radio since alot of the time they don't crossfade their music or talk over it.

And if the issue is ripping then the RIAA needs to go after anyone releasing a program capable of ripping and anyone hosting said files for distribution. If they can do it with file sharing they can do it with rippers.

With that said there is only one way to stop the RIAA and that is one of the most massive petition campaigns with people telling the record labels if they continue to be members of the RIAA we will not buy their products. If you take away the RIAA's members you kill the RIAA. It's that simple and it's nothing more than what the RIAA is trying to do to internet broadcasters as well as the general public.

Go after their lifeblood and watch the beast die.

Megarock Radio - St. Louis Since 1998!
Tune In Now!
Corporate Radio Sucks! No suits, all rock!
MegaRock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th April 2007, 05:05   #142
Exceptional
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 25
Quote:
Originally posted by MegaRock
And if the issue is ripping then the RIAA needs to go after anyone releasing a program capable of ripping and anyone hosting said files for distribution. If they can do it with file sharing they can do it with rippers.
Stream ripping software is perfectly legal and are not the same as file sharing networks. Stream ripping is no different than your TiVo or any device that records a broadcast. The RIAA was successful at suing file sharing networks because they proved the file sharing networks were negligent in stopping the distribution of copyrighted material. Developers of stream ripping software cannot be sued successfully because it can be argued that if you ban stream ripping software, then you have to ban all devices/software that records. This is why the RIAA has focused on broadcasters instead.
Exceptional is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th April 2007, 21:31   #143
Greg_E
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 1,687
Apparently some record companies may not care so much about stream rippers. This just showed up in my inbox from the magazine Broadcast Engineering:
Quote:
EMI drops copy protection on music downloads

In what could have far-reaching implications for content owners, EMI — one of the big four record companies — announced that beginning in May its digital music catalog will available for sale in high-quality versions without copy protection.

Apple iTunes will be the first retail outlet for the downloads, which are free of digital rights management (DRM) restrictions.

"In all of the research, consumers tell us overwhelmingly that they would be willing to pay a higher price for a digital music file that they could use on any player," said Eric Nicoli, CEO of EMI Group. "It's clear to us that interoperability is important to music buyers and is a key to unlocking and energizing the digital business."

Apple CEO Steve Jobs, who had called for the removal of DRM from downloaded music, termed the announcement a landmark event. He said that the high-quality songs would be encoded at 256kb/s AAC instead of 128kb/s AAC used for the standard songs. The new songs will carry a higher price of $1.29 — 30 cents more than current songs available on iTunes.

Users, he said, will not be forced to pay the higher prices if they don't want to. The higher-quality DRM-free songs will be an addition to the store, not a replacement for what is already being offered. Users can still choose to purchase DRM-encoded tracks for about $1 per song.

Earlier, Jobs had argued that there appeared to be no benefit for the record companies in selling more than 90 percent of their music without DRM on compact discs, while selling the remaining small percentage of music online encumbered with DRM.

Executives at several rival record companies questioned whether EMI had done sufficient market research to justify the move. But EMI is just the first, according to Jobs. He told the IDG News service that Apple expected well more than half of the songs on the iTunes Store to be DRM-free by the end of the calendar year.

When Jobs proposed removing DRM from songs in an open letter earlier this year, he was bombarded with harsh criticism from content owners.

"Hopefully, by our actions here today and over the coming months, they will conclude that we are continuing to do exactly what has earned us these number one positions — doing the right thing for the customer," Jobs said. "The right thing for the customer going forward is to tear down the walls that preclude interoperability by going DRM free."
Sorry, I can't link directly to the story or I would, it's user specific.

Your mileage may vary!
Greg_E is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th April 2007, 22:46   #144
gameplaya15143
Major Dude
 
gameplaya15143's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Earth
Posts: 753
Quote:
Originally posted by MegaRock
the RIAA needs to go after anyone releasing a program capable of ripping
With that kind of logic I suppose you were happy when dvddecrypter was murdered. And the police should go after gun manufactures because guns can kill people, and car makers because cars can be used to kill people.

Edit: Oh yea, I almost forgot, Winamp can be used to rip streams just fine. So I guess they should go after AOL & Nullsoft?
gameplaya15143 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th April 2007, 12:49   #145
Mxhub
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1
Send a message via AIM to Mxhub Send a message via Yahoo to Mxhub
Quote:
Originally posted by Exceptional
Stream ripping software is perfectly legal and are not the same as file sharing networks. Stream ripping is no different than your TiVo or any device that records a broadcast. The RIAA was successful at suing file sharing networks because they proved the file sharing networks were negligent in stopping the distribution of copyrighted material. Developers of stream ripping software cannot be sued successfully because it can be argued that if you ban stream ripping software, then you have to ban all devices/software that records. This is why the RIAA has focused on broadcasters instead.
Totally agree here. Only the broadcaster may be sue if any copyright is violated.
Mxhub is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th April 2007, 14:12   #146
radstream
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Where the rattle snakes roam
Posts: 116
Send a message via Yahoo to radstream
This tweeks me off; the whole royalty thing with webcasting.

Point 1) Most people are honest.
Point 2) Registering and licensing material is too complex and expensive.

Solution: Simple, inexpensive licensing. Have a simple website setup. Licensing is based on number of average concurrent listeners per year. Make it something like $0.50 per max concurrent listener. Say you have a server with 100 user max but you estimate your average listenership over a year will be 50, so, you owe $25 per year. Reasonable, eh?

So, right now there are ~18,000 streams on Shoutcast directory. Say 50% register and set their average max to be 100. That's $50 per each of 9,000 streamers. That's a total of $450,000 SoundExchange would be getting.

Heck, even if 100% of the streamers registered, that would be $900,000!!! What are they getting now??? My guess is almost nothing. SO... IMHO, in this case, easier & cheaper = more revenue!

Toss Live365 and the other large webcasters into this formula and it works out the same. Say some big webcaster has an average max of 100,000 listeners. Simple - they pay $50,000 and be done.

Why is this SO difficult for SoundExchange to figure out???

I've been around this webcasting stuff for a while; I'm no noob. I have read quite a bit and see RIAA/SE effectively killing off a new world of webcasting. When 802.11s (mesh networking) becomes more prevalent - the world will open up to webcasts in cars and mobile devices. This new royalty legislation may well kill off a new industry.

Sure, terrestrial broadcasters don't like this. Soon, webcasters with a few $$ could send their webcast to more people than a terrestrial broadcaster can, without the expense of a transmitter and all of the studio hardware.

IMHO, the broadcasting industry is running scared.

Standing by...
-Ken
radstream is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th April 2007, 12:03   #147
MADcHATTER
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 31
Everyone is touting writing their congress people...and to some this may seem like the only way to get this turned around. I would like to point out one thing folks...

The CRB (Copyright Royalty Board) is an office of, and run by...The Librarian Of Congress!

Do you really think their going to look out for your interests here? I would like to offer a counter proposal. We are starting a movement to go after the True Perpetrators of this decision, the RIAA's Gestapo tactics, the manipulation of legal complexities and inequities to destroy an entire small business segment...the only people who would truly benefit from destroying Internet Radio...The Labels!

The "Don't Buy Into It" campaign is working to become the "Ultimate Act of Civil Disobedience" By getting Americans to do the one thing that will really get the Labels, CRB's, RIAA's and even the Governments attention...NOT SPENDING OUR MONEY ON THE LABELS CRAP for 6 months!

We can do this...if we DJ's and Netcasters can pull together to get the word out...From October 1st 2007 to March 1st, 2008...during the biggest sales time of the year...Dont Buy Anything The Labels Put out! We can go for 6 months without buying their crap...they CANT go for 6 months without us buying their crap! It will be an undertaking as massive in scale as it sounds...we need to get the word out to at least 100 million americans, or more...we need to get the word out to our worldwide audiences! Imagine the possibilities...

More information can be found at http://www.madchatter.net help us to inform everyone with the truly most effective tool we have...our money! By keeping it...we send the most powerful message there is...Dont Mess With Us! We are the market! We are the People! We have the Power! Dont take away our freedom of choice!

DON'T BUY INTO IT!
MADcHATTER is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th April 2007, 19:31   #148
richard mitnick
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 53
I asked in another post for a link to savethestreams.org on Shoutcast. Everybody is throwing stones at me. Yet you all are so aware of the potential of this problem, and recognize some of your monikers, why are you all so resistent?

::RSM
richard mitnick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th April 2007, 20:43   #149
Exceptional
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 25
Ok lets all calm down here. I have read many articles regarding the new rates, and most "experts" conclude that the higher rates will be the death of internet radio. These rates will only affect 10% of broadcasters because the music industry is not going to waste time suing a smaller stations. Do you really think the music industry has the resources to monitor what content is being played on over 19,000 servers worldwide? The average server broadcasts to 10 listeners at any given time. More than 70% of the broadcasters online are not paying royalty fees and could care less if the rates increase or decrease.

The new rates will only affect the larger broadcasters and to be honest the lager broadcasters need to start treating internet radio as a real industry and not as a hobby. There is vast revenue potential in internet radio and broadcasters need to capitalize on it. Have you ever seen a magazine ad or TV commercial for one of the top internet radio stations?

As I have stated before internet radio isn’t going anywhere and in a few years internet radio will have more listeners than both satellite and terrestrial radio combined. Terrestrial radio is on a sharp decline, and Satellite radio has not held up to its promises to revolutionize radio.

My point is these higher rates are actually a sign of what is to come. These rates are being implemented now because eventually all major radio broadcasting will be done online and the music industry wants its cut. Both Sirus and XM radio provides some or all of their content online, and eventually all terrestrial radio stations will be forced to migrate online.
Exceptional is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th April 2007, 20:56   #150
richard mitnick
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 53
Exceptional-

Thanks for your very reasoned perspective.

My fear is that when the Copywrite Control Board can not get to all of the small fry, some of whom do a fabulous job of presenting various niches, then they will go after Shoutcast's owner, AOL, a unit of Time Warner.
richard mitnick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th April 2007, 21:48   #151
dotme
Moderator
 
dotme's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 4,024
Quote:
Originally posted by Exceptional
...the music industry is not going to waste time suing a smaller stations.
I wouldn't bet on that. Seriously. This the "industry" that sues 12 year old girls for file sharing, yes?

I know of several small US operators that garner under 10 listeners who have been contacted by ASCAP, or SESAC, in the past 3 months. As expensive as it may be to license, it's a lot more expensive to pay the fines.
dotme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th April 2007, 01:50   #152
chance4phun
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 17
hey mega rock...friend of mine told me about this...he is taking night classes....saw this on the wall...made me a copy...i have it up at work....think it's a pretty cool idea...get out the word vie email...photo and pass or simply posting on a forum....it went like this...and yes I have taken the PLEDGE.....I think the general idea is take make sure you remember the three simpley points....but copy from the flyer....

WAKE UP:
1500 college students have been sued and now internet radio is on it's last leg………

Take the PLEDGE

1. I WILL NOT BUY ANY CD'S OR DOWN LOAD FOR PAY MUSIC
2. I WILL LISTEN AND SUPPORT COLLEGE RADIO STATIONS ONLY
3. I WILL WRITE MY CONGRESSMEN AND SENATORS

I WILL CONTINUE THIS UNTIL SOUNDEXCHANGE HAS BEEN DISBANDED AND THERE ARE FAIR LAWS FOR WEBCASTERS…..

SO TAKE THE PLEDGE

Copy what is between the words PLEDGE and send them to your friends either thru email or just printing something out or tell them….but get the word around….it is time to take back our music…SPREAD THE WORD
chance4phun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th April 2007, 02:47   #153
Greg_E
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 1,687
Keep in mind that those 1500 students were stealing music by distributing it on p2p networks. There is a vast difference between what they were doing, and what we are trying to do. No one here (that is legal) objects to paying a fair price to stream the music, but what the RIAA wants is no longer fair.

Your mileage may vary!
Greg_E is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th April 2007, 10:38   #154
PC Radio Net
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 482
Send a message via AIM to PC Radio Net Send a message via Yahoo to PC Radio Net
This isn't just affecting radio either. My favorite TV show of all time (WKRP) is about to hit DVD, however, because of the RIAA, they're replacing the original songs with public domain songs in almost every episode. This is a show about a radio station. The music is an essential part of the show. It may be my favorite show, but I am NOT buying into it unless they release it the way it originally aired.

The PC Radio Network: An upbeat variety of the 50s-Today!
PC Radio Net is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th April 2007, 14:25   #155
Greg_E
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 1,687
Quote:
Originally posted by PC Radio Net
This isn't just affecting radio either. My favorite TV show of all time (WKRP) is about to hit DVD, however, because of the RIAA, they're replacing the original songs with public domain songs in almost every episode.
That's just low.
Greg_E is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th April 2007, 14:59   #156
radstream
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Where the rattle snakes roam
Posts: 116
Send a message via Yahoo to radstream
Quote:
Originally posted by dotme
I wouldn't bet on that. Seriously. This the "industry" that sues 12 year old girls for file sharing, yes?

I know of several small US operators that garner under 10 listeners who have been contacted by ASCAP, or SESAC, in the past 3 months. As expensive as it may be to license, it's a lot more expensive to pay the fines.
Unfortunately, it is probably just a matter of time. We may say that what we do is different from those using P2P neworks; and we may legaly acquire our content, but the law is blind. P2P sharing of copyrighted files, without permission, is illegal. Webcasting copyrighted files without permission or the proper paperwork, payment, etc... is illegal. The law doesn't care whether we think it is right or not.

They may not go after the 'small fry' and maybe never will. BUT, what happens when/if the RIAA start pressuring AOL/Spinner/Nullsoft for distributing ShoutCast. That will likely be their 1st move. Look at the pattern in the fight against illegal P2P sharing... They sued & shutdown Napster. Then, after other suits against software makers, they started suing users.

So, likely, before any streamer starts getting 'love letters' from RIAA, Shoutcast will hear it first. And likely, we will hear about it.

BUT, that's not to say they will not hit the streamers first. Those of you who pay for bandwidth are only one subpeaona away from a demand letter.

This is what worries me... There are some great streams out there with some wonderful ideas. What if one of these streams go big-time & become HUGELY popular? Guess who will be looking for their royalties...

My 2cents...
Ken
radstream is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th April 2007, 15:35   #157
radstream
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Where the rattle snakes roam
Posts: 116
Send a message via Yahoo to radstream
I just wanted to include this link:

Broadcast Law Blog
It is a great discussion of broadcasting, webcasting and royalties with a bias toward the opinion that webcasters are getting the stiff end of the deal. This is definitely worth a read.

Ken
radstream is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th April 2007, 03:10   #158
MegaRock
Forum King
 
MegaRock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Inside my water bong
Posts: 6,854
Send a message via ICQ to MegaRock Send a message via Yahoo to MegaRock
Here are the facts:

If the RIAA sues you for illegal downloading they claim the song is worth $750.00. This would mean a CD is worth $7,500.

At the same time a CD sells in the store for $10 - 15.00. But they want us to believe it's worth so much more.

And yes, at the same time Napster - which is operating with the approval of the record labels allows you to sign up for about ten bucks a month and have access to download and burn THREE MILLION SONGS. If you do the math - three million songs for ten bucks - you see where I am going with this.

In other words a legitimate operation approved by the record labels basicalls gives away songs for next to nothing. And then consider this - how much in royalties do artists stand to gain from what is made of that ten bucks for three million songs?

Illegal downloading? Internet radio royalties? Per listener fees?

Let's get real - the RIAA is screwing not only us but the artists and has clearly proven the real worth of a song. They have also proven that they don't give a shit about the artists nor getting them any royalties.

Now mind you the record labels themselves are NOT the RIAA. They are MEMBERS of the RIAA. If the record labels were forced to choose between losing their customers and remaining a member of the RIAA which do you think they would choose. THE MONEY. The RIAA itself is nothing more than a handful of people making money off the record labels. They pretend to represent the artist and even care about the labels themselves. They only care about themselves. Want proof? Check out the pay check of the CEO of the RIAA and you've got it.

So speak with your money. Spread the word. We all know that a stupid ass video on YouTube can easily spread to tens of millions of people. Spreading the word to the same amount of people via the internet is easy. Just start doing it. Post on websites, blogs, MySpace - hell make a stupid ass video and stick it on YouTube. Not just one but post a new one every day.

Post what I have posted here. Repeat it over and over again. Tell the record labels to discontinue their membership with the RIAA or they will lose your business until they do. If just one million people did it the response would be tremendous. If they leave the RIAA the record labels would still sell CD's. They would still make money. Their business wouldn't change at all.

But if they don't they could lose millions of customers and tens of millions of dollars.

But don't stop there. Write the artists and bands you love and tell them to demand the same thing. I believe the artists deserve better - they deserve royalties. They deserve to get paid. But the RIAA is screwing them out of royalties too and they shouldn't allow it to happen.

Force change. Make the RIAA go back to what it originally was created to do - track record sales and award gold and platinum records. Nothing more. They have no right to be writing laws and changing copyright laws and collecting royalties while keeping part of the till for doing so.

THE RIAA MUST BE DISBANDED. SPREAD THE WORD.

Megarock Radio - St. Louis Since 1998!
Tune In Now!
Corporate Radio Sucks! No suits, all rock!
MegaRock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th April 2007, 16:43   #159
SorceryKid
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 294
Small Webcasters Unveil Plans to Launch Industry Trade Group

Billboard Publicity Wire - April 16, 2007 Press Release

--Randall
SorceryKid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th April 2007, 17:58   #160
SorceryKid
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 294
Copyright Royalty Judges Deny Rehearing

The Copyright Royalty Judges today summarily dismissed the motions for rehearing and reconsideration submitted by all parties, including both DiMA, NPR, and even SoundExchange.

What impeccable timing, since Kurt Hanson is holding his industry summit today, SaveNetRadio coalition launched their new media campaign today, and SWCI announced its intent to form a trade association today.

Read the response of the Judges in its entirety:
http://www.smallwebcaster.org/media/...etomotions.pdf

It appears that Monday, April 16 is truly one for the history books.

--Randall
SorceryKid 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