Wednesday, September 5, 2007
food for thought...
this is a very heavy subject that some just cant get their head around. it is definitive across the board in terms of what defines music, creativity, constitutional laws, and what the riaa essentially tries to do to djs and musicians alike. this is serious food for thought...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SaFTm2bcac
Showing posts with label rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rights. Show all posts
Saturday, January 24, 2009
back-words... more about webcasting...
Monday, May 14, 2007
more about webcasting...
while the author may be unusually optimistic about the potential tide of change, there does exist a possibility that things may improve, regardless of the size of that possibility. the shame of it all is the source of this possibility: congress. congress would have to be very heavily politically motivated to bother with intervention at all. frankly, i think the author is barking up a false tree of hope. i foresee that the political sway to motivate congress to intervene will be insufficient to effectively motivate congress. congress could care less or something would have been done sooner. this is grasping at last straws and while i truly do hope congress, or anyone for that matter, stops this mess from going any further, i highly doubt anything will happen. i think the riaa has been proving itself an unstoppable beast of power all along, unbending to the myriads who oppose its will, and i think they will continue to be unstoppable because anyone who has the ability wont bother because they dont care. conversely, anyone who cares cant stop them because they not powerful enough. i think we can oppose them til the cows come home and meet quotas and prerequisites and it will all be quickly pushed under the carpet. i cant help feel that everything would be different if artists owned their own copyrights as authors do. i think this could make all the difference. i think the collective would break down and cease to function.
how about them apples, riaa? maybe we should own our own copyrights? maybe all music should become creative commons? maybe the corporate music industry should quake and fall by its very foundation? yeah, how about that, riaa?
http://www.wired.com/entertainment/music/commentary/listeningpost/2007/05/listeningpost_0514
Webcasters' Doom Could Remix the Future of Music
05.14.07 | 2:00 AM
Ah, the long goodbye. Looming, potentially astronomical royalty-rate hikes first sent webcasters scrambling toward a May 15 deadline, then a July 15 deadline and now, potentially, an indefinite slide all the way into next year. But the outcome looks the same: You can still kiss your favorite online radio station goodbye.
Webcasters will either go out of business trying to pony up the 3 percent to 20 percent pay hikes (up to $110 per online listener each year based on these calculations) or they'll ruin themselves trying. For the user -- who's probably not willing to pay a penny for what's previously been free and doesn't want to suffer through more ads -- that change means less music variety, fewer tool options and far less customization. Yeah, just about everything that makes online radio so great.
But all is not lost. Webcasting may spiral into its own dark ages, but the resulting debate over royalties could drive Congress into overhauling copyright law and finally forcing the music industry, kicking and screaming, into the future (or at least the present).
Of course, that's no help to webcasters now. For the most part, they're pooling efforts to fight the Copyright Review Board's ruling that they pay the new fees to SoundExchange, the former RIAA division tasked with collecting and distributing online radio-licensing fees to artists and labels.
Webcasters are taking a three-pronged approach to finding a solution. They're hoping for a federal judge-issued emergency stay that comes out of the appeal process or a deal with SoundExchange or, perhaps, congressional intervention.
Each option is fraught with obstacles. According to Jake Ward, spokesman for SaveNetRadio, "The law that enacted the royalty is in place. If you go by the theory of legislative inertia ... (webcasters) have an uphill battle to overturn that royalty rate."
Legislative inertia is not enough to stop webcasters from trying to save their skins, of course. Fritz Kass, chief operating officer of the Intercollegiate Broadcasting System, which represents college and non-commercial radio and has appealed the rates: "On June 1, 2007, or soon after, the chief judge ... will lay out dates and times for the parties to present their case.... This process can take several months, or over a year," Kass explained in an email.
DiMA Executive Director Jon Potter said his organization, which represents webcasters large and small, will also file an appeal before the May 31 deadline.
One component of these appeals is the request for an emergency stay to postpone SoundExchange's royalty collection for the duration of the proceedings. Jessica Litman, a law professor at the University of Michigan, and Ross Dannenberg, an attorney at Banner & Witcoff, Ltd., agreed that the yet-to-be-assigned judge will most likely issue this emergency stay.
If the U.S. Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia Circuit confounds expert wisdom by refusing to stay the rates, webcasters such as Pandora and Live365 will face immediate and certain insolvency, as execs wind up writing checks greater than the value of their companies.
"Webcasters are moving forward with the understanding that royalty payments are due July 15th, and that the bill will include all of 2006 and the first five months of 2007," explained SaveNetRadio's Ward. "As it stands, that day will put many thousands of webcasters in the red."
If the appeals fail, an emergency stay won't come cheap for webcasters. Those massive royalty payments will accumulate interest until they are due, and as Litman said, "If the Lexus dealer says 'no money down' for the next 12 months, that doesn't mean you go buy a Lexus."
Webcasters may not even make it onto the proverbial car lot. If the rates stand as July 15th draws near, SoundExchange will almost certainly negotiate to keep webcasters alive -- and Congress out of its hair.
"If SoundExchange wants to keep Congress from getting involved," Litman said, "it's not great strategy to insist on royalties or that (webcasters) shut down. My guess is that if there isn't a stay, SoundExchange will be willing to make an informal arrangement (with webcasters)."
If the court grants the stay, as expected, congressional intervention becomes more likely because SoundExchange would have less incentive to deal with webcasters directly. As both sides plead their cases in appeals court and congressional hearings, neither will be in a position for conciliatory action toward the other -- they'll be too busy making arguments in their own favor.
The House and Senate have already introduced bills that would overturn the new rates in favor of a new scheme that would charge webcasters 7.5 percent of revenue -- the same percentage charged to satellite broadcasters (terrestrial radio stations, profitable for years, are entirely exempt from mechanical licensing, which webcasters, representing a fledgling industry, claim is unfair).
The big question: Why might SoundExchange be so afraid of congressional intervention? And, conversely, why do webcasters want it so badly? Because Congress could do more than just rejigger a royalty rate, and that gets me to my big point: Considering that more than 70 million congressional constituents listen to online radio and webcasters have lobbyists of their own, there might be enough combined influence to balance out the RIAA's considerable lobbying efforts.
Ward said SaveNetRadio "supports any time granted that would enable webcasters to continue broadcasting while a structural solution is pursued in Congress. A structural solution would benefit webcasters and the artists (who) depend on internet radio, so that we don't have to do this every five years."
I couldn't agree more. Congress has the constitutional authority to rebuild copyright law from the ground up and should take this opportunity to do so. Our Byzantine, cobbled-together copyright laws hurt all parties involved, from artists to labels, distributors to fans. They hold the present to ancient standards that make less sense each year.
With any luck, the Copyright Royalty Board's decision, initially so terrifying to the online community, will be seen as a helpful seed in the edifice of copyright law that germinated, cracked the foundation and brought down the whole rickety structure, allowing webcasters, labels and Congress to build something that makes sense today as opposed to 50 years ago.
This may sound optimistic, but it's a possibility -- provided Congress has the gumption to act when the time comes. For now, it's time to heat up some popcorn and watch as the battle unfolds, the lawyers get paid and the future awaits.
more about webcasting...
while the author may be unusually optimistic about the potential tide of change, there does exist a possibility that things may improve, regardless of the size of that possibility. the shame of it all is the source of this possibility: congress. congress would have to be very heavily politically motivated to bother with intervention at all. frankly, i think the author is barking up a false tree of hope. i foresee that the political sway to motivate congress to intervene will be insufficient to effectively motivate congress. congress could care less or something would have been done sooner. this is grasping at last straws and while i truly do hope congress, or anyone for that matter, stops this mess from going any further, i highly doubt anything will happen. i think the riaa has been proving itself an unstoppable beast of power all along, unbending to the myriads who oppose its will, and i think they will continue to be unstoppable because anyone who has the ability wont bother because they dont care. conversely, anyone who cares cant stop them because they not powerful enough. i think we can oppose them til the cows come home and meet quotas and prerequisites and it will all be quickly pushed under the carpet. i cant help feel that everything would be different if artists owned their own copyrights as authors do. i think this could make all the difference. i think the collective would break down and cease to function.
how about them apples, riaa? maybe we should own our own copyrights? maybe all music should become creative commons? maybe the corporate music industry should quake and fall by its very foundation? yeah, how about that, riaa?
http://www.wired.com/entertainment/music/commentary/listeningpost/2007/05/listeningpost_0514
Webcasters' Doom Could Remix the Future of Music
05.14.07 | 2:00 AM
Ah, the long goodbye. Looming, potentially astronomical royalty-rate hikes first sent webcasters scrambling toward a May 15 deadline, then a July 15 deadline and now, potentially, an indefinite slide all the way into next year. But the outcome looks the same: You can still kiss your favorite online radio station goodbye.
Webcasters will either go out of business trying to pony up the 3 percent to 20 percent pay hikes (up to $110 per online listener each year based on these calculations) or they'll ruin themselves trying. For the user -- who's probably not willing to pay a penny for what's previously been free and doesn't want to suffer through more ads -- that change means less music variety, fewer tool options and far less customization. Yeah, just about everything that makes online radio so great.
But all is not lost. Webcasting may spiral into its own dark ages, but the resulting debate over royalties could drive Congress into overhauling copyright law and finally forcing the music industry, kicking and screaming, into the future (or at least the present).
Of course, that's no help to webcasters now. For the most part, they're pooling efforts to fight the Copyright Review Board's ruling that they pay the new fees to SoundExchange, the former RIAA division tasked with collecting and distributing online radio-licensing fees to artists and labels.
Webcasters are taking a three-pronged approach to finding a solution. They're hoping for a federal judge-issued emergency stay that comes out of the appeal process or a deal with SoundExchange or, perhaps, congressional intervention.
Each option is fraught with obstacles. According to Jake Ward, spokesman for SaveNetRadio, "The law that enacted the royalty is in place. If you go by the theory of legislative inertia ... (webcasters) have an uphill battle to overturn that royalty rate."
Legislative inertia is not enough to stop webcasters from trying to save their skins, of course. Fritz Kass, chief operating officer of the Intercollegiate Broadcasting System, which represents college and non-commercial radio and has appealed the rates: "On June 1, 2007, or soon after, the chief judge ... will lay out dates and times for the parties to present their case.... This process can take several months, or over a year," Kass explained in an email.
DiMA Executive Director Jon Potter said his organization, which represents webcasters large and small, will also file an appeal before the May 31 deadline.
One component of these appeals is the request for an emergency stay to postpone SoundExchange's royalty collection for the duration of the proceedings. Jessica Litman, a law professor at the University of Michigan, and Ross Dannenberg, an attorney at Banner & Witcoff, Ltd., agreed that the yet-to-be-assigned judge will most likely issue this emergency stay.
If the U.S. Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia Circuit confounds expert wisdom by refusing to stay the rates, webcasters such as Pandora and Live365 will face immediate and certain insolvency, as execs wind up writing checks greater than the value of their companies.
"Webcasters are moving forward with the understanding that royalty payments are due July 15th, and that the bill will include all of 2006 and the first five months of 2007," explained SaveNetRadio's Ward. "As it stands, that day will put many thousands of webcasters in the red."
If the appeals fail, an emergency stay won't come cheap for webcasters. Those massive royalty payments will accumulate interest until they are due, and as Litman said, "If the Lexus dealer says 'no money down' for the next 12 months, that doesn't mean you go buy a Lexus."
Webcasters may not even make it onto the proverbial car lot. If the rates stand as July 15th draws near, SoundExchange will almost certainly negotiate to keep webcasters alive -- and Congress out of its hair.
"If SoundExchange wants to keep Congress from getting involved," Litman said, "it's not great strategy to insist on royalties or that (webcasters) shut down. My guess is that if there isn't a stay, SoundExchange will be willing to make an informal arrangement (with webcasters)."
If the court grants the stay, as expected, congressional intervention becomes more likely because SoundExchange would have less incentive to deal with webcasters directly. As both sides plead their cases in appeals court and congressional hearings, neither will be in a position for conciliatory action toward the other -- they'll be too busy making arguments in their own favor.
The House and Senate have already introduced bills that would overturn the new rates in favor of a new scheme that would charge webcasters 7.5 percent of revenue -- the same percentage charged to satellite broadcasters (terrestrial radio stations, profitable for years, are entirely exempt from mechanical licensing, which webcasters, representing a fledgling industry, claim is unfair).
The big question: Why might SoundExchange be so afraid of congressional intervention? And, conversely, why do webcasters want it so badly? Because Congress could do more than just rejigger a royalty rate, and that gets me to my big point: Considering that more than 70 million congressional constituents listen to online radio and webcasters have lobbyists of their own, there might be enough combined influence to balance out the RIAA's considerable lobbying efforts.
Ward said SaveNetRadio "supports any time granted that would enable webcasters to continue broadcasting while a structural solution is pursued in Congress. A structural solution would benefit webcasters and the artists (who) depend on internet radio, so that we don't have to do this every five years."
I couldn't agree more. Congress has the constitutional authority to rebuild copyright law from the ground up and should take this opportunity to do so. Our Byzantine, cobbled-together copyright laws hurt all parties involved, from artists to labels, distributors to fans. They hold the present to ancient standards that make less sense each year.
With any luck, the Copyright Royalty Board's decision, initially so terrifying to the online community, will be seen as a helpful seed in the edifice of copyright law that germinated, cracked the foundation and brought down the whole rickety structure, allowing webcasters, labels and Congress to build something that makes sense today as opposed to 50 years ago.
This may sound optimistic, but it's a possibility -- provided Congress has the gumption to act when the time comes. For now, it's time to heat up some popcorn and watch as the battle unfolds, the lawyers get paid and the future awaits.
back-words... this could kill my ability to broadcast...
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
this could kill my ability to broadcast...
as some of you know i have been broadcasting online since 2004. i have been on 6 stations. these days ive been focusing my energy on one. now its looking like i might not have a home to broadcast from anymore, because who wants to pay for permission to play something when theyre not receiving income for it? honestly, i cant say that i would. that would be a drain on my pocket. ive also heard talk of blanket fees becoming a thing of the past. this would be an even greater drain. if things continue to go the way they are now, i may no longer broadcast against my will. its hard enough trying to promote myself by posting free mixes, that when people can no longer tune in to listen, it really hurts my efforts to be a successful dj. it was also a way to promote my own production, but if stations shut down, then it becomes hard to promote myself as well. some of you may say that shoutcast is the answer. believe me, shoutcast is not the answer. i have been using shoutcast off an on. a major draw back is hosting yourself based on your computers own power. that only allows most people 3-6 listeners. a lot of djs average 15-20 on their hosted station. now thats a severe loss in listenership. the likelihood of the right listener with the right connection for a dj being one of those three listeners is highly unlikely at that rate. this becomes a problem for those of us striving for something better in life than playing for shits n giggles...
source:
http://www.betanews.com/article/Copyright_Board_Upholds_Decision_Internet_Royalty_Rates_Proceed/1176761824
Copyright Board Upholds Decision; Internet Royalty Rates Proceed
By Scott M. Fulton, III, BetaNews
April 16, 2007, 6:24 PM
Stating that Internet streaming broadcasters' objections had neither put forth new evidence nor presented any clear sign that they had made some egregious error, the three-judge US Copyright Royalty Board this afternoon ruled it would not stay its own decision last month imposing a massive, per-performance rate increase on Internet streaming broadcasters, beginning in 2008.
"We find...that none of the moving parties [that requested a rehearing] have made a sufficient showing of new evidence or a clear error or manifest injustice that would warrant a rehearing," the judges wrote. "To the contrary...most of the parties' arguments in support of a rehearing or reconsideration merely restate arguments that were made or evidence that was presented during the proceeding." While those who objected to the rates, which included National Public Radio, argued that they were putting forth new evidence, the judges wrote that such evidence was either already in the record or "could have been discovered during the proceeding, with reasonable diligence."
.. -->
However, in what could be a glimmer of hope for streaming music providers and radio stations with streaming channels, the CRB did rule that it would not impose the per-performance rate retroactive to 2006 and 2007. Instead, it would impose an increase on the "aggregate tuning hour" (ATH) method that had been employed before, but which earlier legislation had enabled streamers to forego.
While the new ATH rates will represent a rise over 2005, they may not be as intolerable as the per-performance rates. BetaNews projects, based on ATH ratings for November 2006, AOL Radio - the nation's largest streaming provider - could owe retroactive royalties of about $946,000. Likewise, Launchcast may owe $700,000, Clear Channel $365,000, and Live365.com $264,000. Had the originally planned rate gone into effect, AOL Radio might have owed $23.6 million for 2006.
A somewhat higher ATH rate will be in effect for 2007, the judges decided, though the amount that the SoundExchange performance royalty organization would collect on behalf of performing artists would still be lower than previously anticipated. But for 2008, the $0.0014 per performance rate would take effect. While that may seem impossibly small on the surface, consider the cost when multiplied by as many as 30 trillion individual song performances per year.
In a statement issued just after the ruling, SoundExchange Executive Director John Simson wrote, "Our artists and labels look forward to working with the Internet Radio industry - large and small, commercial and non-commercial - so that together we can ensure it succeeds as a place where great music is available to music lovers of all genres."
But as Trevor Moyer comments on the blog Save Our Internet Radio, "So according to the CRB, their decision, which will effectively wipe out almost all of U.S.-based Internet radio - thousands of small webcasters, college radio streaming, NPR on the net, and services like Pandora to name a few categories - is NOT a manifest injustice. Wow."
From here, the affected parties have 30 days to appeal this decision to the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. This will likely happen. Meanwhile, streaming providers have until May 15 to pay their 2006 dues, which for some may be crippling though not fatal. And opponents of the new scheme may yet find their long-sought audience with Congress. If so, legislation may be able to change the course set by copyright judges before the Court of Appeals hears the case - which industry lawyers believe might not happen for another year, at best.
this could kill my ability to broadcast...
as some of you know i have been broadcasting online since 2004. i have been on 6 stations. these days ive been focusing my energy on one. now its looking like i might not have a home to broadcast from anymore, because who wants to pay for permission to play something when theyre not receiving income for it? honestly, i cant say that i would. that would be a drain on my pocket. ive also heard talk of blanket fees becoming a thing of the past. this would be an even greater drain. if things continue to go the way they are now, i may no longer broadcast against my will. its hard enough trying to promote myself by posting free mixes, that when people can no longer tune in to listen, it really hurts my efforts to be a successful dj. it was also a way to promote my own production, but if stations shut down, then it becomes hard to promote myself as well. some of you may say that shoutcast is the answer. believe me, shoutcast is not the answer. i have been using shoutcast off an on. a major draw back is hosting yourself based on your computers own power. that only allows most people 3-6 listeners. a lot of djs average 15-20 on their hosted station. now thats a severe loss in listenership. the likelihood of the right listener with the right connection for a dj being one of those three listeners is highly unlikely at that rate. this becomes a problem for those of us striving for something better in life than playing for shits n giggles...
source:
http://www.betanews.com/article/Copyright_Board_Upholds_Decision_Internet_Royalty_Rates_Proceed/1176761824
Copyright Board Upholds Decision; Internet Royalty Rates Proceed
By Scott M. Fulton, III, BetaNews
April 16, 2007, 6:24 PM
Stating that Internet streaming broadcasters' objections had neither put forth new evidence nor presented any clear sign that they had made some egregious error, the three-judge US Copyright Royalty Board this afternoon ruled it would not stay its own decision last month imposing a massive, per-performance rate increase on Internet streaming broadcasters, beginning in 2008.
"We find...that none of the moving parties [that requested a rehearing] have made a sufficient showing of new evidence or a clear error or manifest injustice that would warrant a rehearing," the judges wrote. "To the contrary...most of the parties' arguments in support of a rehearing or reconsideration merely restate arguments that were made or evidence that was presented during the proceeding." While those who objected to the rates, which included National Public Radio, argued that they were putting forth new evidence, the judges wrote that such evidence was either already in the record or "could have been discovered during the proceeding, with reasonable diligence."
.. -->
However, in what could be a glimmer of hope for streaming music providers and radio stations with streaming channels, the CRB did rule that it would not impose the per-performance rate retroactive to 2006 and 2007. Instead, it would impose an increase on the "aggregate tuning hour" (ATH) method that had been employed before, but which earlier legislation had enabled streamers to forego.
While the new ATH rates will represent a rise over 2005, they may not be as intolerable as the per-performance rates. BetaNews projects, based on ATH ratings for November 2006, AOL Radio - the nation's largest streaming provider - could owe retroactive royalties of about $946,000. Likewise, Launchcast may owe $700,000, Clear Channel $365,000, and Live365.com $264,000. Had the originally planned rate gone into effect, AOL Radio might have owed $23.6 million for 2006.
A somewhat higher ATH rate will be in effect for 2007, the judges decided, though the amount that the SoundExchange performance royalty organization would collect on behalf of performing artists would still be lower than previously anticipated. But for 2008, the $0.0014 per performance rate would take effect. While that may seem impossibly small on the surface, consider the cost when multiplied by as many as 30 trillion individual song performances per year.
In a statement issued just after the ruling, SoundExchange Executive Director John Simson wrote, "Our artists and labels look forward to working with the Internet Radio industry - large and small, commercial and non-commercial - so that together we can ensure it succeeds as a place where great music is available to music lovers of all genres."
But as Trevor Moyer comments on the blog Save Our Internet Radio, "So according to the CRB, their decision, which will effectively wipe out almost all of U.S.-based Internet radio - thousands of small webcasters, college radio streaming, NPR on the net, and services like Pandora to name a few categories - is NOT a manifest injustice. Wow."
From here, the affected parties have 30 days to appeal this decision to the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. This will likely happen. Meanwhile, streaming providers have until May 15 to pay their 2006 dues, which for some may be crippling though not fatal. And opponents of the new scheme may yet find their long-sought audience with Congress. If so, legislation may be able to change the course set by copyright judges before the Court of Appeals hears the case - which industry lawyers believe might not happen for another year, at best.
back-words... just what kind of power-hungry cowards are the riaa?
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
just what kind of power-hungry cowards are the riaa?
...the yellow-bellied kind, or so it seems. read on...
source:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061026-8085.html
Defendant doesn't want RIAA let off the hook
By Eric Bangeman | Published: October 26, 2006 - 02:13PM CT
Related Stories
* RIAA drops file sharing case
* RIAA fights to keep wholesale pricing secret
* RIAA doesn't like independent experts
* Defendant prevails in another RIAA file-sharing case
The RIAA has decided it wants to drop another copyright infringement case, but the defendant is fighting back. Warner v. Stubbs began like so many of the file-sharing cases. MediaSentry found shared music on Kazaa and the IP address was traced to Tallie Stubbs of Oklahoma. After settlement talks proved futile, Warner Bros., UMG, Sony Music, and Arista Records filed suit in the US District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma on July 25, 2006.
After "further investigation," according to a plaintiff's court filing, the record labels decided to dismiss the case. However, they requested that the case be dismissed without prejudice and with prejudice. Likely due to a typographical error, the distinction is important. Dismissal without prejudice means that the action can be brought again in the future. If a case is dismissed with prejudice, it cannot be refiled and the defendant may be named the "prevailing party" and be eligible for attorney's fees and court costs from the plaintiffs, which is what happened in the case of Capitol Records v. Foster.
When the RIAA decides to drop a case, it will file for dismissal without prejudice. If the motion is made prior to the defendant filing an answer to the complaint or a counterclaim, that's the end of the case. The RIAA extricates itself from a case it decided was unwinnable and the defendant is left holding the bag for attorney's fees. In Warner v. Stubbs, the defendant filed an answer and counterclaim seeking affirmative relief before the RIAA filed a motion.
One common thread in the Capitol Records v. Foster and the Warner v. Stubbs cases is the defendant's counsel, Marilyn Barringer-Thompson. After reading through the paperwork from the two cases, it's clear that Barringer-Thompson is playing hardball with the record labels. Ray Beckerman, who runs the Recording Industry vs The People blog and is representing other defendants embroiled in litigation with the RIAA, told Ars that it looked to him like the RIAA decided to cut and run when it saw who the opposing counsel was.
If Tallie Stubbs wins her motion for dismissal with prejudice, then she, too, will be considered the prevailing party and will be eligible for attorney's fees and other court costs from the RIAA. More importantly, it would put the RIAA in the position of having lost one of their file-sharing-related copyright infringement case—none of which have yet gone to trial.
Unfortunately, we don't know what transpired behind the scenes and why the RIAA wants to drop the case. What "further investigation" did the RIAA undertake with regard to the Stubbs case? Was it another case of mistaken identity? We contacted the RIAA for answers to these and other questions and were told by a spokesperson earlier today that the RIAA would be unable to provide answers because our questions "go to an element of legal strategy that we'll pass on detailing."
Should one of the file-sharing cases actually make it to trial, we may get definitive answers on a number of elements of the RIAA's legal strategy. Is an IP address and the name and address of an ISP subscriber enough to make a positive identification of who was doing the alleged file sharing and when? (We were reminded earlier this week that relying on ISP data is not foolproof.) Is a list of music files allegedly discovered by MediaSentry enough to prove infringement? Beckerman doesn't think so. The RIAA's actions indicate that they're not anxious to get a definitive answer either.
Further reading:
* Recording Industry vs The People
* RIAA drops file sharing case
* Record labels evasive about in-house use of file-sharing apps
just what kind of power-hungry cowards are the riaa?
...the yellow-bellied kind, or so it seems. read on...
source:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061026-8085.html
Defendant doesn't want RIAA let off the hook
By Eric Bangeman | Published: October 26, 2006 - 02:13PM CT
Related Stories
* RIAA drops file sharing case
* RIAA fights to keep wholesale pricing secret
* RIAA doesn't like independent experts
* Defendant prevails in another RIAA file-sharing case
The RIAA has decided it wants to drop another copyright infringement case, but the defendant is fighting back. Warner v. Stubbs began like so many of the file-sharing cases. MediaSentry found shared music on Kazaa and the IP address was traced to Tallie Stubbs of Oklahoma. After settlement talks proved futile, Warner Bros., UMG, Sony Music, and Arista Records filed suit in the US District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma on July 25, 2006.
After "further investigation," according to a plaintiff's court filing, the record labels decided to dismiss the case. However, they requested that the case be dismissed without prejudice and with prejudice. Likely due to a typographical error, the distinction is important. Dismissal without prejudice means that the action can be brought again in the future. If a case is dismissed with prejudice, it cannot be refiled and the defendant may be named the "prevailing party" and be eligible for attorney's fees and court costs from the plaintiffs, which is what happened in the case of Capitol Records v. Foster.
When the RIAA decides to drop a case, it will file for dismissal without prejudice. If the motion is made prior to the defendant filing an answer to the complaint or a counterclaim, that's the end of the case. The RIAA extricates itself from a case it decided was unwinnable and the defendant is left holding the bag for attorney's fees. In Warner v. Stubbs, the defendant filed an answer and counterclaim seeking affirmative relief before the RIAA filed a motion.
One common thread in the Capitol Records v. Foster and the Warner v. Stubbs cases is the defendant's counsel, Marilyn Barringer-Thompson. After reading through the paperwork from the two cases, it's clear that Barringer-Thompson is playing hardball with the record labels. Ray Beckerman, who runs the Recording Industry vs The People blog and is representing other defendants embroiled in litigation with the RIAA, told Ars that it looked to him like the RIAA decided to cut and run when it saw who the opposing counsel was.
If Tallie Stubbs wins her motion for dismissal with prejudice, then she, too, will be considered the prevailing party and will be eligible for attorney's fees and other court costs from the RIAA. More importantly, it would put the RIAA in the position of having lost one of their file-sharing-related copyright infringement case—none of which have yet gone to trial.
Unfortunately, we don't know what transpired behind the scenes and why the RIAA wants to drop the case. What "further investigation" did the RIAA undertake with regard to the Stubbs case? Was it another case of mistaken identity? We contacted the RIAA for answers to these and other questions and were told by a spokesperson earlier today that the RIAA would be unable to provide answers because our questions "go to an element of legal strategy that we'll pass on detailing."
Should one of the file-sharing cases actually make it to trial, we may get definitive answers on a number of elements of the RIAA's legal strategy. Is an IP address and the name and address of an ISP subscriber enough to make a positive identification of who was doing the alleged file sharing and when? (We were reminded earlier this week that relying on ISP data is not foolproof.) Is a list of music files allegedly discovered by MediaSentry enough to prove infringement? Beckerman doesn't think so. The RIAA's actions indicate that they're not anxious to get a definitive answer either.
Further reading:
* Recording Industry vs The People
* RIAA drops file sharing case
* Record labels evasive about in-house use of file-sharing apps
back-words... another chapter in music vs law...
Friday, April 13, 2007
another chapter in music vs law...
i get the feeling sometimes that music is going to be outlawed, because rules keep establishing barriers for creativity and promotion. i think if music were illegal for everyone, then those who support music creativity and promotion wouldnt be viewed to be so evil. music has often been a source of rebellion, protest, and a powerful deliverer of various messages. perhaps these walls are made to stop our ability to support such messages. perhaps we have forgotten our ability to rise against powers that limit our freedom of expression- a constitutional freedom. perhaps its merely done against us in the name of money. to those who oppose us, i say: "we are the music makers; we are the dreamers who dream..."
April 13, 2007, 8:53AM
DJ Drama vows to continue making mixtapes despite arrest
By JONATHAN LANDRUM JR.
Associated Press
ATLANTA — With arms folded and a grin that shows much bravado, DJ Drama stands alongside his nine Aphilliate group members for an album cover photo shoot. His friend DJ Don Cannon suddenly starts crooning, the entire clique bursts into laughter.
No worries. No conflict. Just everyone having a good time.
A few months ago, Drama thought such an enjoyable moment wouldn't come anytime soon.
"I wasn't thinking about a photo shoot," he said. "I said to myself, 'God, give me a bail and a bond.'"
Drama, born Tyree Simmons, had become one of the top DJs in hip-hop after working with rappers such as Young Jeezy, T.I. and Lil' Wayne through his popular Gangsta Grillz mixtape series. Mixtapes are promotional CD compilations featuring top rappers and are often sold on street corners and on the Internet.
Drama had just signed a record deal, which is rare for a DJ, and was co-hosting a local and satellite radio show. But as his star rose, he and his partner Cannon were arrested in January for reproducing recorded material for sales, violating Georgia's Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organization law.
Both were jailed one night and were released on $100,000 bond.
Though the case is still not resolved, Drama is looking to clear his name as a criminal and show people that mixtapes are an asset for the music industry.
"They're the bloodline," he said. "They're the vein. So many people have capitalized off mixtapes. 50 Cent, one of music's top moguls, wouldn't even be where he is at, if it wasn't for them.
"I hope people learn more about mixtapes after our situation."
Mixtapes are a compilation of songs that includes teasers for upcoming albums, freestyle rhymes and remixes of popular hits. Artists often use them to gain extra exposure. Even though record labels often support mixtapes for their marketing strength, they also have been wary because bootleggers often sell the music for profit.
Isaac Hayes III, son of soul singer Isaac Hayes and a music producer, said mixtapes have benefited unknown artists in the urban market and record labels as well.
"It's a way to create a buzz in the streets," he said. "Rappers can easily go on mixtapes and say whatever they want about an issue at that moment, without having to wait for their album to drop. They help a lot."
In efforts to crackdown on pirated music, special task forces focus on copyright infringement in the recording industry. Drama and Cannon were investigated after a Georgia task force officer said he found mixtapes supplied by Drama that were for sale without the consent of record labels at a kiosk inside a south Atlanta mall.
The officer then contacted the Recording Industry Association of America, which represents the recording industry. An investigation was launched and about a month later, local police raided the Aphilliate Music Group office in downtown Atlanta.
The company's assets were frozen, more than 81,000 mixtape CDs were destroyed, recording equipment, computers and cars were taken by officers. Even files for Drama's first mixtape album release under a major label — T.I.'s Grand Hustle Records, under Atlantic Records — were seized by police. (The RIAA declined The Associated Press' request for comment).
As Drama described the entire scene, a small frown appeared, then his head dropped in disappointment. He said it was disturbing when officers repeatedly asked them if they had "guns and drugs" in their office.
"Cops jumped out, M-16s were drawn," he explained. "They threw us to the ground and arrested me and Cannon. Drug-sniffing dogs went inside and they confiscated everything we worked so hard to achieve."
Cannon, born Donald Cannon, said he thought the police made a mistake at the time.
"I've never been to jail," he said. "I saying, 'Wow. What did I do wrong?'"
Cannon, who also is also a hip-hop producer, insists that they don't make money off mixtapes, but it does provide exposure from them. He said DJs try to gain recognition and get the major bucks through separate deals, like their own radio show, party performances or going on tour with an artist.
The Aphilliates host an evening radio show in Atlanta and a program on Sirius Satellite Radio. Drama is also the official DJ for the best-selling rapper T.I.
Drama and Co. have huge support. Many wrote uplifting messages on their MySpace page, they were embraced at events and "Free Drama & Cannon" T-shirts were made.
After the album he had been working on for a year was taken in the raid, Drama recreated a whole new mixtape album in three weeks. OutKast, Busta Rhymes and Beenie Sigel were some artists who took part in the album, which is set for release in June.
Drama's first single, Takin' Pictures, speaks specifically on the raid and the importance of mixtapes. The track features Young Jeezy, his artist Willie The Kid, Jim Jones, Rick Ross, Young Buck and T.I.
"I didn't have nothing, but everyone came to my aid," said Drama. "My engineer thought I was crazy about putting out an album in such short time. But I had no choice. This album represents the game and the obstacles that comes with it. It's a testament to all the grindin' that was put in over the years."
The 28-year-old Philadelphia native built a strong clientele while attending Clark Atlanta University here; he graduated in 2000. His hyperactive voice over thumping but synthesizing beats made him popular on his first southern-based mixtape, Jim Crow Laws. Drama decided to rename the series Gangsta Grillz, producing over 40 mixtape albums. Grand Hustle co-CEO Jason Geter recognized his skills and later signed him onto the label in 2005.
"He had hustle just like me," Geter said. "I'm glad he is with us now. He is the best in the world."
With the case still pending, Drama is hopeful that the charges against him and Cannon will be dropped soon.
"It's another chapter in my book," said Drama, father of two daughters. "I realize it's another challenge to overcome. I'm here to prove that I can put the game on my back and the Aphilliates can't be stopped. We are here to stay."
another chapter in music vs law...
i get the feeling sometimes that music is going to be outlawed, because rules keep establishing barriers for creativity and promotion. i think if music were illegal for everyone, then those who support music creativity and promotion wouldnt be viewed to be so evil. music has often been a source of rebellion, protest, and a powerful deliverer of various messages. perhaps these walls are made to stop our ability to support such messages. perhaps we have forgotten our ability to rise against powers that limit our freedom of expression- a constitutional freedom. perhaps its merely done against us in the name of money. to those who oppose us, i say: "we are the music makers; we are the dreamers who dream..."
April 13, 2007, 8:53AM
DJ Drama vows to continue making mixtapes despite arrest
By JONATHAN LANDRUM JR.
Associated Press
ATLANTA — With arms folded and a grin that shows much bravado, DJ Drama stands alongside his nine Aphilliate group members for an album cover photo shoot. His friend DJ Don Cannon suddenly starts crooning, the entire clique bursts into laughter.
No worries. No conflict. Just everyone having a good time.
A few months ago, Drama thought such an enjoyable moment wouldn't come anytime soon.
"I wasn't thinking about a photo shoot," he said. "I said to myself, 'God, give me a bail and a bond.'"
Drama, born Tyree Simmons, had become one of the top DJs in hip-hop after working with rappers such as Young Jeezy, T.I. and Lil' Wayne through his popular Gangsta Grillz mixtape series. Mixtapes are promotional CD compilations featuring top rappers and are often sold on street corners and on the Internet.
Drama had just signed a record deal, which is rare for a DJ, and was co-hosting a local and satellite radio show. But as his star rose, he and his partner Cannon were arrested in January for reproducing recorded material for sales, violating Georgia's Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organization law.
Both were jailed one night and were released on $100,000 bond.
Though the case is still not resolved, Drama is looking to clear his name as a criminal and show people that mixtapes are an asset for the music industry.
"They're the bloodline," he said. "They're the vein. So many people have capitalized off mixtapes. 50 Cent, one of music's top moguls, wouldn't even be where he is at, if it wasn't for them.
"I hope people learn more about mixtapes after our situation."
Mixtapes are a compilation of songs that includes teasers for upcoming albums, freestyle rhymes and remixes of popular hits. Artists often use them to gain extra exposure. Even though record labels often support mixtapes for their marketing strength, they also have been wary because bootleggers often sell the music for profit.
Isaac Hayes III, son of soul singer Isaac Hayes and a music producer, said mixtapes have benefited unknown artists in the urban market and record labels as well.
"It's a way to create a buzz in the streets," he said. "Rappers can easily go on mixtapes and say whatever they want about an issue at that moment, without having to wait for their album to drop. They help a lot."
In efforts to crackdown on pirated music, special task forces focus on copyright infringement in the recording industry. Drama and Cannon were investigated after a Georgia task force officer said he found mixtapes supplied by Drama that were for sale without the consent of record labels at a kiosk inside a south Atlanta mall.
The officer then contacted the Recording Industry Association of America, which represents the recording industry. An investigation was launched and about a month later, local police raided the Aphilliate Music Group office in downtown Atlanta.
The company's assets were frozen, more than 81,000 mixtape CDs were destroyed, recording equipment, computers and cars were taken by officers. Even files for Drama's first mixtape album release under a major label — T.I.'s Grand Hustle Records, under Atlantic Records — were seized by police. (The RIAA declined The Associated Press' request for comment).
As Drama described the entire scene, a small frown appeared, then his head dropped in disappointment. He said it was disturbing when officers repeatedly asked them if they had "guns and drugs" in their office.
"Cops jumped out, M-16s were drawn," he explained. "They threw us to the ground and arrested me and Cannon. Drug-sniffing dogs went inside and they confiscated everything we worked so hard to achieve."
Cannon, born Donald Cannon, said he thought the police made a mistake at the time.
"I've never been to jail," he said. "I saying, 'Wow. What did I do wrong?'"
Cannon, who also is also a hip-hop producer, insists that they don't make money off mixtapes, but it does provide exposure from them. He said DJs try to gain recognition and get the major bucks through separate deals, like their own radio show, party performances or going on tour with an artist.
The Aphilliates host an evening radio show in Atlanta and a program on Sirius Satellite Radio. Drama is also the official DJ for the best-selling rapper T.I.
Drama and Co. have huge support. Many wrote uplifting messages on their MySpace page, they were embraced at events and "Free Drama & Cannon" T-shirts were made.
After the album he had been working on for a year was taken in the raid, Drama recreated a whole new mixtape album in three weeks. OutKast, Busta Rhymes and Beenie Sigel were some artists who took part in the album, which is set for release in June.
Drama's first single, Takin' Pictures, speaks specifically on the raid and the importance of mixtapes. The track features Young Jeezy, his artist Willie The Kid, Jim Jones, Rick Ross, Young Buck and T.I.
"I didn't have nothing, but everyone came to my aid," said Drama. "My engineer thought I was crazy about putting out an album in such short time. But I had no choice. This album represents the game and the obstacles that comes with it. It's a testament to all the grindin' that was put in over the years."
The 28-year-old Philadelphia native built a strong clientele while attending Clark Atlanta University here; he graduated in 2000. His hyperactive voice over thumping but synthesizing beats made him popular on his first southern-based mixtape, Jim Crow Laws. Drama decided to rename the series Gangsta Grillz, producing over 40 mixtape albums. Grand Hustle co-CEO Jason Geter recognized his skills and later signed him onto the label in 2005.
"He had hustle just like me," Geter said. "I'm glad he is with us now. He is the best in the world."
With the case still pending, Drama is hopeful that the charges against him and Cannon will be dropped soon.
"It's another chapter in my book," said Drama, father of two daughters. "I realize it's another challenge to overcome. I'm here to prove that I can put the game on my back and the Aphilliates can't be stopped. We are here to stay."
back-words... stop the madness...
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
stop the madness...
ok, looky here, another company having troubles with the riaa -- and a highly recognized and respected name at that -- is having fears of business loss over this runaway train also known as the riaa.
i get infuriated because i want to dj and produce edm til i die, or at least into my 60s/70s. i feel like i am being stripped bit by bit (no pun intended) of a livelihood that has grown to be my deepest passion. i have worked in many career/job fields. i came back to music, not only because its what i do best, but also because it is what i love. i want to live off of making music, entertaining and delighting listeners and dancers with my craft.
djs mix because they promote a sound, not because they claim music as their own work. why should a dj have to pay to promote what isnt theirs? a lot of djs also produce when they mix. theyre not getting paid to produce. most internet djs dont get paid at all, theyre playing to entertain and to promote their own skill and craft and selective talent. most internet edm djs are in a separate class than mainstream djs. the music is already underground in most cases. the riaa is shutting down something they have no right to shut down.
please do something about this. please use the links provided. please nurture the scene that fosters unconditional acceptance. please help...
Digitally Imported Blog
.. Begin #content --> .. Begin #main -->
Monday, March 12, 2007
.. Begin .post -->
New Music Royalty Rates May Shut Down Internet Radio
On Friday March 2nd, the U.S. government, through the Copyright Royalty Board (CRB), made a determination of the royalty rates Internet Radio webcasters must pay the owners of sound recording copyrights to license the music they webcast for the years 2006-2010. The license is paid to SoundExchange, a nonprofit organization that collects royalty payments from digital music broadcasters and distributes them to rights holders.
The issue is that the new rates completely ignore the business and market realities of Internet Radio. In a nutshell they expect many webcasters, such as at Digitally Imported, to pay far greater money for licensing than we ever even collect from all of our services, effectively driving webcasters out of business.
For commercial and for larger non-commercial webcasters the judges set a pay-per-play rate of:
* $.0008 per play for 2006
* $.0011 per play for 2007
* $.0014 per play for 2008
* $.0018 per play for 2009
* $.0019 per play for 2010
No need to adjust your glasses, you are seeing it correctly. Not only are the rates outrageous but they also continue to increase wildly every year. For example, by 2007 the rate jumps 37% from 2006!
SaveTheStreams.org has sample calculations here on what it means to stream to 10,000 concurrent listeners on average, if you are interested in the fine details. And keep in mind that Digitally Imported has far more listeners than in that example. We are talking about rates which are hundreds of % more than the revenues webcasters generate, even before any expenses for things such as wages, resources, hardware, and so on. How judges can come up with such numbers is beyond me. What we do know is that Digitally Imported was part of a collective of small commercial broadcasters which presented its arguments in court proceedings. Yet the judges completely threw virtually all of our arguments aside in making their decision.
What's ironic is that even if the Internet radio advertising market was fully mature, which it isn't, and we played as many audio ads for you as we could - then not only we'd be in for a prize for most ads played by any entity, as one other webcaster joked. But we still would be very far from reaching the required revenue numbers and being able to pay such rates. It's just completely unrealistic to expect any sort of a model to exist both now and in next years that would come close to being able to justify these rates. Maybe the big corporations of the world such as Yahoo and AOL could in theory afford to loose on such rates and still provide music, but that doesn't mean all other businesses have to go as a result. Do you really want to have just a few big corporations playing the music for you in the future?
You may ask us about why don't we just play unlicensed tracks or make an agreement with artists directly to avoid paying so much. The reality of the business is that it is virtually impossible to micromanage things this way. You'd have to have a world class communication company to be able to track down so many artists or labels, find where who is, who to contact, what forms to sign, talk them into it, etc. Plus you'd be surprised just how much of the non-mainstream music you love so much here is really signed to a label. That's why in theory the law that allows for a blanket license is really convenient - it's just that the rates which were set now are truly hopeless and stifle any kind of competition. What are we supposed to do, wave a flag and and turn into a payola service? Put a banner out that says "hey, whoever pays us the most in advance gets to have his or her track heard on the radio!"? Because that's the only model that is going to work with these rates.
This All Sounds Familiar, What Happened Last Time?
If this all sounds familiar it is because it is very similar to what happened the last time around 2002 and the Day of Silence campaign. Then too very bad rates were proposed for the period up until the end of 2005. Much hype was raised because then as now the industry was about to die. You wonderful listeners wrote in droves to your congressmen whether by submitting online forms, emails, letters, or phone calls, and they in turn heard your message. With the urging of Congressmen last time, SoundExchange and the small commercial webcasters such as Digitally Imported settled on a deal (SWSA) that allowed us to pay a percentage of revenue or expenses instead of per performance, with the rates ranging around 10-12%. Even though officially the rates set by the Copyright Royalty Board (CRB) last time were also bad, this negotiated deal allowed us to use another model and continue to exist. There was no such option allowed by the CRB this time, and the jury's still out on whether anything will be negotiated like it was last time.
WHAT YOU CAN DO TO HELP, AND IT TAKES 2 MINUTES
After careful consideration we feel that the most efficient course of action would be to send a note to your own Congresspeople complaining about the issue, stating that it is important to you and that you want them to help solve it.
To do so we are providing an easy link for you, there's even prepared text for you to Copy and Paste. Please go to this link at Congress.org, check the text there and copy it, and by just inputting your zip code you can digitally send in the letter to your congresspeople. This really helps!
Of course the more you spread this message among friends and the media, the more attention it grabs and the more pressure there is on everyone to overturn or settle the matter before it is too late.
Also see the new post about Other Ways To Help and Donate, which has been added since after numerous requests.
On behalf of Team Digitally Imported, and all our other fellow webcasters, we thank you for your support once again. It was a miracle that last time around we were able to do something through these actions, there's no reason why it cannot work again. Thank you for your few minutes of time to help in this matter.
Sincerely,
Ari Shohat
Founder & Manager
Digitally Imported, Inc.
http://www.di.fm/ http://www.sky.fm/
..>digg_url='http://digg.com/tech_news/New_Streaming_Royalty_Rates_also_threaten_Digitally_Imported_Radio';..>
.. src="http://digg.com/api/diggthis.js">..>
posted by Ari at 5:39 PM
.. End .post -->.. Begin #comments -->
98 Comments:
Anonymous said...
This is rather scary news as DI.fm is amazing. Is there anything that your users can do if they do not live in the US?
Thanks Chris
P.S. You should put more information about this on your main page,
1:31 PM
Anonymous said...
Oh my god, that is terrible. :o
I second the "put it on the main page". Make it bold and red.
I stumbled upon this by accident. :(
4:40 PM
Anonymous said...
What if you only play non-licensed music?
2:40 PM
Miljan said...
I became a paid member moments ago and the first thing I accidentally found on the site was the following piece of information: "New Music Royalty Rates Are About To Shut Down Internet Radio... Stay tuned here as I explain in next few days how this is going to kill us soon unless..."
: )
Looking forward to hearing more on this one.
2:19 PM
Anonymous said...
My understanding, is that it has nothing to do with any form of licensing. All music played will incur a charge to be paid to SoundExchange, and its up to the artist to collect the royalties from SoundExchange. In theory this ruling does apply to non-US based listeners, so DI could continue to broadcast to anyone outside the US. Quite ironic.
2:56 PM
Anonymous said...
Thats neat, but for those of us in fact in the US this would be horrible! I've put up bulletins on myspace to try and get the word out as well as forums. Hopefully this can be stopped eh?
10:02 PM
Anonymous said...
The true reality is I listen to your di.fm because of your 'content'. Personally I think if you could get the artists to pay for your radio. Di.fm are much better equipped and culturally to present it the right way, as I have discovered it.
ps. good luck with the fight.
10:47 PM
Anonymous said...
Anyways...you don't even profit from it...other than advertise the artists, correctly....not destroy it...i guess in the case of underground music vs commercial...just like in the real world...get the hint...sometimes to provide quality...keep doing what you guys do best...because it definitely promotes the artists much much better...rather than some commercial avenues...keep the fight...
10:58 PM
Anonymous said...
Time to move the servers to Europe heh. This is really rediculous.
11:04 PM
Michael O'Hara said...
I think the royality increases for Internet Radio is nothing short of egregious and downright greedy. I sincerely hope that my representatives will be able to vote against this bill or I'll just have to vote them out :)
12:06 AM
Anonymous said...
Don't worry. All you have to do is set up your servers and credit card processing thru offshore destinations that are non complaint to US laws and court orders.
12:31 AM
David said...
How hypocritical it is of any governmental body or corporation to do anything to destroy any form of e-commerce. The Internet is still too new and needs to be given time to grow. Between this new development and the extent the government has gone to stifle Internet gaming, I am appalled.
1:42 AM
Anonymous said...
I wonder that you mustn't pay for playing bevor now! In Germany we pay since Internetradio is possible! Good Luck!
2:05 AM
Anonymous said...
You should start thinking about moving servers and headquarters to Europe. USA is becoming more and more pro-corporate.
Good luck!
5:02 AM
Kyle said...
You know all this does? It works aggressively to push down market competition, force companies overseas or underground - it is anticompetetive in the greatest sense.
Where on earth do these judges get their arguments from? Their rulings? This is totally absurd and is the polar opposite - the antithesis - of logic.
5:09 AM
Anonymous said...
Sounds like USA are getting as shitty as France in terms of music rights management.
7:09 AM
Anonymous said...
Sounds like they are just squeezing the properly run sites like DI and encouraging the crooked underground ones that will never pay anything! It defies belief that they think this is going to work. At the moment they are getting a healthy chunk from the internet, but soon they will get nothing because they will shut down all the stations. goose and golden egg spring to mind! -Dogfax
8:07 AM
L2 said...
Well, that's the music industry for ya. They just want the money, that's it.
9:47 AM
Yogiyosh said...
This is just another example of how greedy the music industry is, the copyright associations in the U.S and U.K mainly want to squeeze every last drop of cash out of radio stations and anybody else.
They use varying arguments that unlicensed airplay is effecting the artists, they allegedly represent. In fact the artists are well looked after.
It makes me sick to think that corporate greed will ruin internet radio stations, such as DI...which in mine and many others opinions is a truely fantastic service.
A final word; what happens when all the radio stations have been squeezed out of business due to crippling charges being levvied, I'm sure the copyright associations would have something to complain about when virtually no income was being raised?
10:36 AM
Anonymous said...
Dieter Lanckman Belgium
What can we do in Europe?
A lot of people love di
Grtz
11:14 AM
Anonymous said...
Totally sucks ... all music I listen to anymore is online. In fact it's not even available elsewhere. The actual radio stations in my area don't even come close.
Yep, time to move the servers
11:14 AM
jason said...
Well I don't know what I can do as I am from UK.
At the end of the day the artists will lose out on thousands in royalty if you go out of business and I don't think they're about to let that happen so I wouldn't worry about it. They'll accept whatever royalty you offer so just continue to do what you're doing.
Regards, JayUK.
12:01 PM
Anonymous said...
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
12:17 PM
Anonymous said...
Sigh.. *shakes fist*
12:17 PM
Anonymous said...
has anyone checked to see who the executives and backers of Soundexchange are? Are they simply a front for the major labels? Might this be a anti-trust suit waiting to happen?
12:20 PM
Anonymous said...
Can non-US citizens send lease to the congress to stop this blasphemy? If all goes down the shitter, you're always welcome to relocate to Canada where we have no laws! :D
Best of luck to everyone.
12:35 PM
Anonymous said...
Thats really awful !!!
For me this is a try to reduce the variety of the internet. Less channels, less music, only playing the mainstream-shit.
1:12 PM
Anonymous said...
this so sucks! i hope di.fm doesnt close down :( i was just about to subscribe for year, and im getting broadband in weeks time just for di!!! dont take it away, how can overseas people help?
lets all hope and pray :)
1:57 PM
Anonymous said...
i too thought relocating the servers/biz elsewhere. i'm wondering if this is a real possiblity? the jack-booted music industry may prosecute americans doing this?
2:26 PM
GABE said...
So if we did have to subscribe, how much would it be?
This SUCKS
DI.fm is one of the best things on the internet.
2:29 PM
Andy said...
We are such a weatly country and still "We don't make enough money to support ourself, so we had to go and inforce these royalties". This is sad news. Instead of doing something about wars that affect our economy we're killing small business. DI.Fm is excellent radio station, with superb playlist. I would really hate to see it go..
2:38 PM
jukommerce said...
In countries with a high tax-rate there is a lot of offshore-banking;
Even in countries where is no democracy there is an opposition;
I think quality will always survive... so we'll keep DI.FM!!!!
But for the USA this is very bad news. Your country will loose marketshare, will loose tax-income and such bad decisions have serious impact on your country's reputation.
2:49 PM
Anonymous said...
I find it irresponsible that congress would even consider such a thing. How much of that money collected actually gets to an artist and how much goes to the bureaucracy of administering it and the salaries of the board of directors of this so called non profit organization?? Working with many artists myself I know the amount collected in Royalties from these third parties are so nominal if at all - that Touring is the only way the artist makes a living. The more listeners the more likely they will have more sold out shows and merch sales.
2:56 PM
Anonymous said...
Pavel Gruev, Bulgaria
A classical case of cutting down the hen that lays golden eggs, just to get a couple of eggs this very moment.
The artists will lose most in the long run, but obviously this is of no concern to the major labels.
I really appreciate listening to your radio and sincerely hope that this stupid law will be changed.
All the best!
3:29 PM
Anonymous said...
really bad news, but aren't laws different in other countries, that di.fm would kind of move their services to another country...
not sure if this could be accomplished easy but its really bad to hear that.
3:37 PM
Rick Dawson said...
Is there anything non US people can do?
I will be putting a post on my blog shortly about this, and linking to here.
4:08 PM
Anonymous said...
I advise you send an e-mail to the folks at the RIAA and SoundExchange and tell them how many music purchases you have made in the last year because of something you heard on Internet radio.
Here is an example; the e-mail I wrote to John Simson, Executive Director of SoundExchange:
Quote:
Mr. Simson,
As an avid listener of Internet radio, I can attest to the marked increase in the amount of music purchases I have made in the last year since I became a DI.fm and RadioParadise.com listener.
I have my favorite terrestrial radio stations I listen to, as well (KINK 102 FM, Portland Oregon), but they do not completely satisfy my eclectic taste in music. As a result of my terrestrial radio listening, I have purchased three CD's in the last 12 months. As a result of my Internet radio listening, I have purchased 5 CD's and well over 150 songs from iTunes and Beatport in the last 12 months.
Internet radio reaches an audience that conventional radio formats never will. The CRB's rate hike will erect huge barriers Internet radio industry, making it an unprofitable venture and limiting choices for consumers. If you price your customers out of the market, then where is your revenue going to come from? And, if I don't get to hear music I like, I won't be buying it!
I stronly urge the RIAA and SoundExchange to reconsider their stance on this issue.
4:40 PM
Anonymous said...
I'm ashamed to be a citizen of this "free" country...
9:20 PM
Anonymous said...
For all listeners who don't live in the US I just have one warning: If the digital rights laws do not effect you directly today, they will once the record companies have assumed total control in the US. They follow the motto: "Today the US, tomorrow the world" At the moment they need the support of the US legislators. Once they have everything they want from them, they will probably move their HQ to Dubai or some other contry where they don't have to pay taxes.
And the US citizens like sheep will accept this just like they accept billions of taxpayers $ being paid to Haliburton who then moves their HQ to Dubai to avoid paying taxes.
I guess if big corporations treat US taxpayers like suckers, these citizens will behave like suckers.
Sorry for rambling ... I am mad.
9:53 PM
Anonymous said...
eh loko soy de argentina y es un bajon eso que lei ...ojala sigan como siempre asi salto de loko en mi habitacion
9:54 PM
Anonymous said...
This radio station better not close down else I will be pissed!!!
10:10 PM
Anonymous said...
This radio station better not close down else I will be pissed!!!
10:10 PM
Anonymous said...
This is stright more bs from the us gov. They just want to suck everyone dry, so they can keep all of what they get, ITS NOT LIKE PEOPLE WHO MAKE MUSIC DONT SELL IT, PEOPLE LISTEN TO IT ON DI.FM and THEN GO BUY IT! YOU ARE SUPPORTING THEM! AND THEY WANT MORE LIKE THE BLOODHOUNDS THEY ARE.
12:05 AM
Lady Rumplestiltskin said...
Do you really want to have just a few big corporations playing the music for you in the future?
Hell no! They don't even play some of the cool songs you guys have for each DIFM channel -- instead, we'll be gettin' Brittany Spears 24/7! My hearing is going NUMB just thinking about it!
Damn straight I'm sendin' a letter of concern to my congressmen and do anything to help keep Digitally Imported alive -- even for the hard rock junkies XD
12:33 AM
Anonymous said...
Sorry, this was the largest Bullshit i ever hear. Which one of all Electronic-Musicans becomes really the Money you must spend??
I think it will be under 1%.
The most people who produce some Sounds do it because them want a better World with more freedom.
The problem is the commercial RnB and HipHop- Scene, them kill the feelings and the Power from the real Music.
I was DJ since a long Time, and i can tell you that it gives millions of people who makes some Sound with the Computer. And here is the Problem; who Contact all of its and bring them the Money??
No one.
Dont spend something, it flows in the wrong direction. It flows in the capitalistic Scene who pray for War and Destruction...
We want a better World? Why we dont do?
Lovely greetings from Chris/Switzerland
4:13 AM
Anonymous said...
I'm so sorry and so sad when hearing this seriously bad news :(!
I'm currently living outside of the US and don't know how to help out you guys at Sky.fm/di.fm with at least a complaining letter to Congresspeople. Nevertheless, I've been actually a foreign audience of your Internet radio station for a pretty long time ago, since the day I incidental found out your station streaming address in my iTunes. I have to say that you guys are really cool and I appreciate your earnest endeavors to actively produce and give out such quality webcasted channels. I wish I could partly contribute something to oppose against this new music royalty rates but everything appears that outside US people is hard to exert their influence to your local government.
Best wishes to you all.
Another lovely greeting from Nguyen/Vietnam.
10:51 AM
Anonymous said...
What horrible news!
Move the office to Canada (then I have a hope of working for you too! ^_~)
Seriously, the artists make money from hard work, like concerts and shows. Its the recording studios who make all the money from the broadcasts.
If we don't keep the small and independent guys running, the world 's only choice will be Britney or Christina! We won't get to pick anything but mainstream!
I love listening to DI.fm, ever since I stumbled upon it a few months ago.
I even listen to it while playing Warcraft.
You guys are great, keep up the good work.
Let us know how us foreigners can help too!
2:53 PM
Anonymous said...
I wrote the letter, I reposted this on my blog and will be sure to put a sign up about it on Inspire Beach in second life ! We stream DI.fm chillout there 90% of the time!
Everyone loves it and I'm sure brings you new listeners everyday.
5:55 PM
Anonymous said...
corporations want to control everything!!
6:49 PM
Anonymous said...
This is horrible! I am nearly addicted to DI.FM for 2 years now, the only station without bla bla..
How can I react and make a statement? I live in Holland, Europe. I want to help.
7:42 PM
Anonymous said...
Is their something we can workout with the royalty rates. Don't get rid of the radio station. Im sure we can work something out. Let the music keep playing.
8:04 PM
Anonymous said...
DI.fm please keep fighting for us listeners we got your back. We want to help to!
8:10 PM
Anonymous said...
We pay for our membership we pay to download songs. What is the BIG problem. Everything is one hundread percent legal. Government go attack some other corporation scaming people out of money.
8:24 PM
Anonymous said...
We pay for our membership we pay to download songs. What is the BIG problem. Everything is one hundread percent legal. Government go attack some other corporation scaming people out of money.
8:24 PM
kandiravah said...
Well....looks like the government's at it again....I don't object to the artists and record companies getting what's due them....but it certainly looks like the government's out to kill off anything that's not a big corporate outlet...like Clear Channel..which owns ALL the major stations in my town....and plays absolutely nothing worth listening to. Not to mention that this would also limit exposure to anything other than what the corporate goons play...maybe it is time to move the servers to a more friendly place...
9:14 PM
Anonymous said...
If it comes down to it, I'd be happy to pay $15/mo for digitally imported. Sure beats anything the sat radio offers for the same price.
I'm not condoning what they are doing, as there doesn't seem to be any room for negotiation. And business is all about negotiation. This is just another attempt from the record companies to stifle innovation, even though they are still making money off it. I really wish the government would stay out of the business world. They can't even balance their own budget, but they'll screw up the market without even batting an eyelash.
10:27 PM
Anonymous said...
I think it is a bunch of nonsense. This has to be about the big corps wanting to step on the samll guys. Think about it, Digitally Imported is far better that any Clear Channle FM statioin I know of an they know it. So what do they do, get a judge who wants to get paid to try to shut the net radio down. A bunch of BS. I host a one man online mix show broadcast and I do not want these guys coming after me for this crap.
Did they think about how mush it already cost to host a live stream with a large number of cuncurrent listeners? WOW. I am just pissed. Pissed. Here I am trying to get a small business off the ground broadcasting and these alreay rich guys tell me I have to pay so much that I could never make it happen. Man, I am trying not to curse but I want to just say these guys are dumb mutha*&^%@s'. Let us get our and help the music scene.
1:56 AM
Anonymous said...
THEY ARE INSANE
No other better explanation.
Mp3 and radio streams stimpulate Sales for events and and artists will definetly gain more from such streams.
Abolishing them is a blasphame against helping emerging artists !
7:01 AM
John said...
Blogged it. johndball.com
8:24 AM
Anonymous said...
This is bad. Once again the music suffers and so to, do the people who listen to it. Record companies should be happy at their music being promoted, people listen, like the track/album and go and buy it. I think the artists who make it should complain also as their music is not getting the best widespread audience available. First DRM now this when will it stop!!!!!! The industry Execs are too greedy!!!
Thanks to all at DI.fm for a great choice in music and a great service.
9:56 AM
Anonymous said...
U.S. government realy disappointed me , first they banned betting and now they try to destroy all online radios !! what a pity.
Could Di.fm move offshore so can do business totally free of any charges??
Cheers.
Abtin
12:57 PM
Anonymous said...
I wrote my congressman...but frankly...why should the ARTISTS not be paid. Free radio! Sign me up! What about more commercials? (Yep...sucks...but it would pay the bills.) What about 1 month free then EVERYONE subscribes...or has to.
There is no free ride.
4:57 PM
Anonymous said...
This is not good, Im from the uk, and DI is the only station I listen to, no one else plays such a wide range of good soul grabbing music as you do.
There must be some thing we can do over here in the uk and other countries to help you guys out?
No DI, would be devastating, keep up the excellent work and carry on playing them great tunes.
Cheers guys, Luke.
5:13 PM
sprawk said...
I just sent an e-mail to both my senators (Jon Kyle & John McCain) and my Congressman (Raúl M. Grijalva) with an edited version of the original plea e-mail:
As your constituent and a fan of Internet radio, I was alarmed to learn
that music royalty rates were recently determined by the Copyright Royalty
Board (CRB) which, if enacted, would certainly silence most or all of my
favorite online listening services. For most webcasters, this royalty rate
represents more than 100% of their total revenues!
The shuttering of the webcasting industry would be a loss for not only
independent business owners, but also for musical artists, for copyright
owners, and for listeners like me who enjoy the wide variety of choices
available via Internet radio. Internet radio stations currently provide a
legal way for listeners like myself to discover new music. Often times on
the sites discussion boards you can speak with the artist, get to know
them, and I feel that this detracts from piracy. I am currently paying for
a premium subscription to an internet radio station (http://di.fm) and
feel it would be an absolute travesty to see good sites like this go down
due to a lack of light being shed on this situation.
I respectfully request that your office look into this matter and initiate
action to prevent it. As the CRB rate decision is retroactive to January
1, 2006, please understand that time is of the essence -- as the immediate
impact of this decision could silence many Internet radio stations
forever.
Sincerely,
Timothy T.
(555)555-5555
Are you a registered voter?: Yes
Did you vote in the last election?: No
Age: 19
Gender: Male
Would you like a reply?: Yes
So I hope that helps. Digg.com is big on this too.
5:13 PM
Razare said...
Wrote my congress person about this, but I don't expect it to turn out well.
It comes down to which force is greater...
Corporate $$$ or Internet Radio Listeners
Sadly, the first is much more powerful and will be for as far as anyone can tell. Decent internet radio will probably die off now.
10:39 PM
Anonymous said...
This is sad. I love this radio station!!. I really hope that you will be running for a long time. I am not american, other wise i would have wrote to my congresspeople. My heart and mind are with you in your fight.
12:01 AM
jayson knight said...
Manual trackback here: http://jaysonknight.com/blog/archive/2007/03/16/save-internet-radio.aspx
12:10 AM
Anonymous said...
SRY DI... You,ve been wonderful...
tony
1:37 PM
Vitesse said...
why do you simply broadcast from canada and play only international music. If american company doesn't have anywere to be listen maybe they change their mind? Canadian and european artiste make realy good music and not only in the electronic domain like di.fm
9:00 PM
Anonymous said...
this is horrible, i think you should make a small add about this in between tracks so more people learn about this and can help.
I hope we can fight this.
2:52 AM
Anonymous said...
from Bake_Seaweed
why don't we just play unlicensed tracks
CHEER and PEACE
6:07 AM
Anonymous said...
from Bake_Seaweed
why don't we just play unlicensed tracks... there is too many KILL OUT dj's out in this WORLD
CHEER AND PEACE
6:10 AM
Danmark said...
Similar processes are not only limited to DI.fm : sign of the times ?
Anyhow, I have messaged USA buddies to encourage them to http://www.congress.org/congressorg/issues/alert/?alertid=9461656&content_dir=ua_congressorg&mailid=custom
I didn't subscribe to DI.fm Premium to see my beloved Internet Radio station disappear !
7:20 AM
Anonymous said...
Its like you open a shop and sell bread for 5 cents, then you start to sell it at 5 dollers... guess what no one buys your bread. It dont figure..
Internet radio stations shut down... they then get no money... eh. So what is the point???
9:02 AM
Anonymous said...
I don't believe in much anymore but one thing I do is internet radio. Just another pathetic move by the music industry. I spit in their faces. Another insult that affects so many people just to make a few richer. I say off with their heads.
5:52 PM
Anonymous said...
Sounds like it's time to "sell" digitally imported to it's future parent company/shell: Digitally Imported Cayman Islands, Inc.
5:58 PM
Anonymous said...
MOVE YOUR SERVERS TO CANADA. WE LOVE DI HERE. I HAVE HOSTED PARTIES STREAMING DI! WE ARE ALL HERE TO HELP.
10:45 PM
Anonymous said...
wow!!! just another way to put people down!! cant they not just leave us HAPPY PEOPLE alone?!!!
hope it gets to b solved soon...
DI is my fav radio channel, i have played 3 different sets here and will play loads more soon, would do anything to help!!
dj deeb
3:59 AM
Anonymous said...
DI is great! I have been listening to you for over three years. I hope nothing ruins my experience with DI. By far you are the #1 broadcast station on the WWW.
12:41 PM
Anonymous said...
Land of the free HMMM
3:32 PM
BoneZ said...
DI is the greatest internet radio on the web and the only one i listen to. Anything we can do DI, you let us know. I for one am not letting DI go that easily.
4:03 PM
Anonymous said...
I know that by looking at the rates quickly, the might SEEM very high. But think about this...
Premium users pay $6.95 per month to listen to DI.FM. Using the rates outlined for 2007 (.0011 per song), and assuming that you listen to an average of 10 hours of music per week, it would cost DI.FM 75 cents ($0.75) to pay for my music royalties - leaving them with $6.20.
This might be an issue for free listening, but it certainly will not be an issue for people even a small fee to listen to music.
4:32 PM
Anonymous said...
this is bullshit!
I live in a small country town and we have almost no radio here other than local government radio.
How am i ever going to hear psychedelic music if the shut internet radio?
This just sucks
11:00 PM
Ari said...
To the person few comments above doing the calculations for Premium service: these rates apply mostly to non-subscription services, considering about 98% of our audience doesn't pay to listen this arguement is pointless as it doesn't apply to a real life scenerio.
11:51 AM
harri the greek said...
dont even think of shuting D.I down
find a way to keep us alive. we need you. no D.I no reason to live.make everybody subscribe.they dont know what they re missing.
unbelivable station and musik
I LOVE YOU.
1:48 PM
Jeff said...
This would be an insane tragedy ... di has helped me get where I am with production, and because of it, im signed. I would HATE for such a great resource and community to be shut down because people dont digg free promotion.
3:11 PM
Anonymous said...
Sigh, they're stupid aren't they eh?
What a shame that non US people can't do anything about it.
Or can they? How?
You should make the link on the main page much bigger, to be honest.
7:43 PM
Anonymous said...
Ari, this is of course the issue, these rates are not worked out on a ‘real life’ scenario.
It sounds very much to me like the person above is suggesting that this rate has been developed, to try and get money for the record industry from Internet radio listeners... now that is a surprise... not.
8:02 PM
david said...
Anyone read the press release from Soundexchange, the body who controls payments - read this section -
We believe internet radio broadcasters are our partners
and it is our strong desire to see a thriving online radio marketplace. However,
such a marketplace cannot be sustained without music, and the decision of the
CRB fully recognizes and reflects this fact.
Thriving on line... more like no more on line. And look at that, Internet radio needs music.. eh yep and it looks like you have it all Soundexchange!
8:22 PM
Anonymous said...
Looking through my congressman's letters to read box I have found at least 100 other emails on this issue. We might actually make a difference.
9:59 PM
Anonymous said...
Love the Music. Once again government has to get into peoples enjoyment of music. Can't you move your company Sky FM to a country that will welcome your music for the world to hear? Again thank you Sky fm for the coolest music on the WWW.
5:17 AM
Anonymous said...
This is one of the reasons why I am starting to dislike the Americans. They kill all the fun...
6:30 AM
Sean said...
Ari,
We are dealing with similar issues through our service. This is all such a headache.
I just sent you an email about the fact that we offer a service that might be able to help you recoup the lost $20,000 and then some.
Please drop me a line: labels [at] PlayItTonight.com
~Sean
PlayItTonight.com
1:57 PM
Ari said...
>Anonymous said... This is one of the reasons why I am starting to dislike the Americans. They kill all the fun...
In reply to that, you might as well stop listening then because this station is run by Americans and Europeans together.
It is important to keep your focus straight here and not to make generalizations. Similarly I find some posts blaming "capitalism" here or on Digg replies for this problem or all the evils of the world completely ridiculous. Remember, the problem here is that a legal body, part of the government (meaning NOT capitalist by definition), made this mess in the first place and made this mess now. Ideally things wouldn't be so regulated, because when someone wants governement regulation you can say goodbye to capitalism and hello to castrated capitalism. This is what is happening here, please be mindful of facts and let us all stick with the issue at hand please.
3:32 PM
Anonymous said...
I sincerely wish you luck in this struggle. I've been a listener for years now, a paying one for most of them. It'll be a sad day if you have to close up shop; leaving me without my favourite (and mostly only) radio channel I listen to.
4:31 PM
Anonymous said...
It will be a shame if we lose DI. But then they tried the same stuff with Napster and look what happened there. Nothings for free anymore. You can tell by the increase of ads that DI has had to run over the past year in order to pay for operations.
Time to move Ari. Either to Canada, or the EU. Set up a mirror site overseas, make it active, and then when and if (most likely when) the time comes, you just shut one down and continue with the other. Sure your hooked on NY, its your home, but trust me Canada is pretty nice too. You will probably like Toronto, or Calgary or Vancouver if you want to come out west.
By the looks of it, "free" internet radio is going the way of the dodo bird. Time for everyone to cough up if they want to hear the music.
On the good side, by being the "CEO" of such a business that already has an "addicted" audience, your paycheque can only get fatter.
I admire the struggle to keep internet radio free, but theres just too much money going around these days and everyone wants a piece.
All I ask is that you keep your rates low when the time comes, so I can afford this. Or else I will be forced to bounce from pirate radio to pirate radio.
Thanks Ari, its been a slice.
4:48 PM
Andrew said...
Just wrote my congresspersons. You should let people know about this by ads on the show.
5:53 PM
Anonymous said...
Do you really want to have just a few big corporations playing the music for you in the future?
This is a very vague statement if you ask me...
I dont want to burst your bubble Ari but your not the only online radio out there. There is plenty more reliable I could say better quality Radios then DI.FM
But the again this is my opinion, so please respect that. I hope it works out for you and di.
9:05 PM
stop the madness...
ok, looky here, another company having troubles with the riaa -- and a highly recognized and respected name at that -- is having fears of business loss over this runaway train also known as the riaa.
i get infuriated because i want to dj and produce edm til i die, or at least into my 60s/70s. i feel like i am being stripped bit by bit (no pun intended) of a livelihood that has grown to be my deepest passion. i have worked in many career/job fields. i came back to music, not only because its what i do best, but also because it is what i love. i want to live off of making music, entertaining and delighting listeners and dancers with my craft.
djs mix because they promote a sound, not because they claim music as their own work. why should a dj have to pay to promote what isnt theirs? a lot of djs also produce when they mix. theyre not getting paid to produce. most internet djs dont get paid at all, theyre playing to entertain and to promote their own skill and craft and selective talent. most internet edm djs are in a separate class than mainstream djs. the music is already underground in most cases. the riaa is shutting down something they have no right to shut down.
please do something about this. please use the links provided. please nurture the scene that fosters unconditional acceptance. please help...
Digitally Imported Blog
.. Begin #content --> .. Begin #main -->
Monday, March 12, 2007
.. Begin .post -->
New Music Royalty Rates May Shut Down Internet Radio
On Friday March 2nd, the U.S. government, through the Copyright Royalty Board (CRB), made a determination of the royalty rates Internet Radio webcasters must pay the owners of sound recording copyrights to license the music they webcast for the years 2006-2010. The license is paid to SoundExchange, a nonprofit organization that collects royalty payments from digital music broadcasters and distributes them to rights holders.
The issue is that the new rates completely ignore the business and market realities of Internet Radio. In a nutshell they expect many webcasters, such as at Digitally Imported, to pay far greater money for licensing than we ever even collect from all of our services, effectively driving webcasters out of business.
For commercial and for larger non-commercial webcasters the judges set a pay-per-play rate of:
* $.0008 per play for 2006
* $.0011 per play for 2007
* $.0014 per play for 2008
* $.0018 per play for 2009
* $.0019 per play for 2010
No need to adjust your glasses, you are seeing it correctly. Not only are the rates outrageous but they also continue to increase wildly every year. For example, by 2007 the rate jumps 37% from 2006!
SaveTheStreams.org has sample calculations here on what it means to stream to 10,000 concurrent listeners on average, if you are interested in the fine details. And keep in mind that Digitally Imported has far more listeners than in that example. We are talking about rates which are hundreds of % more than the revenues webcasters generate, even before any expenses for things such as wages, resources, hardware, and so on. How judges can come up with such numbers is beyond me. What we do know is that Digitally Imported was part of a collective of small commercial broadcasters which presented its arguments in court proceedings. Yet the judges completely threw virtually all of our arguments aside in making their decision.
What's ironic is that even if the Internet radio advertising market was fully mature, which it isn't, and we played as many audio ads for you as we could - then not only we'd be in for a prize for most ads played by any entity, as one other webcaster joked. But we still would be very far from reaching the required revenue numbers and being able to pay such rates. It's just completely unrealistic to expect any sort of a model to exist both now and in next years that would come close to being able to justify these rates. Maybe the big corporations of the world such as Yahoo and AOL could in theory afford to loose on such rates and still provide music, but that doesn't mean all other businesses have to go as a result. Do you really want to have just a few big corporations playing the music for you in the future?
You may ask us about why don't we just play unlicensed tracks or make an agreement with artists directly to avoid paying so much. The reality of the business is that it is virtually impossible to micromanage things this way. You'd have to have a world class communication company to be able to track down so many artists or labels, find where who is, who to contact, what forms to sign, talk them into it, etc. Plus you'd be surprised just how much of the non-mainstream music you love so much here is really signed to a label. That's why in theory the law that allows for a blanket license is really convenient - it's just that the rates which were set now are truly hopeless and stifle any kind of competition. What are we supposed to do, wave a flag and and turn into a payola service? Put a banner out that says "hey, whoever pays us the most in advance gets to have his or her track heard on the radio!"? Because that's the only model that is going to work with these rates.
This All Sounds Familiar, What Happened Last Time?
If this all sounds familiar it is because it is very similar to what happened the last time around 2002 and the Day of Silence campaign. Then too very bad rates were proposed for the period up until the end of 2005. Much hype was raised because then as now the industry was about to die. You wonderful listeners wrote in droves to your congressmen whether by submitting online forms, emails, letters, or phone calls, and they in turn heard your message. With the urging of Congressmen last time, SoundExchange and the small commercial webcasters such as Digitally Imported settled on a deal (SWSA) that allowed us to pay a percentage of revenue or expenses instead of per performance, with the rates ranging around 10-12%. Even though officially the rates set by the Copyright Royalty Board (CRB) last time were also bad, this negotiated deal allowed us to use another model and continue to exist. There was no such option allowed by the CRB this time, and the jury's still out on whether anything will be negotiated like it was last time.
WHAT YOU CAN DO TO HELP, AND IT TAKES 2 MINUTES
After careful consideration we feel that the most efficient course of action would be to send a note to your own Congresspeople complaining about the issue, stating that it is important to you and that you want them to help solve it.
To do so we are providing an easy link for you, there's even prepared text for you to Copy and Paste. Please go to this link at Congress.org, check the text there and copy it, and by just inputting your zip code you can digitally send in the letter to your congresspeople. This really helps!
Of course the more you spread this message among friends and the media, the more attention it grabs and the more pressure there is on everyone to overturn or settle the matter before it is too late.
Also see the new post about Other Ways To Help and Donate, which has been added since after numerous requests.
On behalf of Team Digitally Imported, and all our other fellow webcasters, we thank you for your support once again. It was a miracle that last time around we were able to do something through these actions, there's no reason why it cannot work again. Thank you for your few minutes of time to help in this matter.
Sincerely,
Ari Shohat
Founder & Manager
Digitally Imported, Inc.
http://www.di.fm/ http://www.sky.fm/
..>digg_url='http://digg.com/tech_news/New_Streaming_Royalty_Rates_also_threaten_Digitally_Imported_Radio';..>
.. src="http://digg.com/api/diggthis.js">..>
posted by Ari at 5:39 PM
.. End .post -->.. Begin #comments -->
98 Comments:
Anonymous said...
This is rather scary news as DI.fm is amazing. Is there anything that your users can do if they do not live in the US?
Thanks Chris
P.S. You should put more information about this on your main page,
1:31 PM
Anonymous said...
Oh my god, that is terrible. :o
I second the "put it on the main page". Make it bold and red.
I stumbled upon this by accident. :(
4:40 PM
Anonymous said...
What if you only play non-licensed music?
2:40 PM
Miljan said...
I became a paid member moments ago and the first thing I accidentally found on the site was the following piece of information: "New Music Royalty Rates Are About To Shut Down Internet Radio... Stay tuned here as I explain in next few days how this is going to kill us soon unless..."
: )
Looking forward to hearing more on this one.
2:19 PM
Anonymous said...
My understanding, is that it has nothing to do with any form of licensing. All music played will incur a charge to be paid to SoundExchange, and its up to the artist to collect the royalties from SoundExchange. In theory this ruling does apply to non-US based listeners, so DI could continue to broadcast to anyone outside the US. Quite ironic.
2:56 PM
Anonymous said...
Thats neat, but for those of us in fact in the US this would be horrible! I've put up bulletins on myspace to try and get the word out as well as forums. Hopefully this can be stopped eh?
10:02 PM
Anonymous said...
The true reality is I listen to your di.fm because of your 'content'. Personally I think if you could get the artists to pay for your radio. Di.fm are much better equipped and culturally to present it the right way, as I have discovered it.
ps. good luck with the fight.
10:47 PM
Anonymous said...
Anyways...you don't even profit from it...other than advertise the artists, correctly....not destroy it...i guess in the case of underground music vs commercial...just like in the real world...get the hint...sometimes to provide quality...keep doing what you guys do best...because it definitely promotes the artists much much better...rather than some commercial avenues...keep the fight...
10:58 PM
Anonymous said...
Time to move the servers to Europe heh. This is really rediculous.
11:04 PM
Michael O'Hara said...
I think the royality increases for Internet Radio is nothing short of egregious and downright greedy. I sincerely hope that my representatives will be able to vote against this bill or I'll just have to vote them out :)
12:06 AM
Anonymous said...
Don't worry. All you have to do is set up your servers and credit card processing thru offshore destinations that are non complaint to US laws and court orders.
12:31 AM
David said...
How hypocritical it is of any governmental body or corporation to do anything to destroy any form of e-commerce. The Internet is still too new and needs to be given time to grow. Between this new development and the extent the government has gone to stifle Internet gaming, I am appalled.
1:42 AM
Anonymous said...
I wonder that you mustn't pay for playing bevor now! In Germany we pay since Internetradio is possible! Good Luck!
2:05 AM
Anonymous said...
You should start thinking about moving servers and headquarters to Europe. USA is becoming more and more pro-corporate.
Good luck!
5:02 AM
Kyle said...
You know all this does? It works aggressively to push down market competition, force companies overseas or underground - it is anticompetetive in the greatest sense.
Where on earth do these judges get their arguments from? Their rulings? This is totally absurd and is the polar opposite - the antithesis - of logic.
5:09 AM
Anonymous said...
Sounds like USA are getting as shitty as France in terms of music rights management.
7:09 AM
Anonymous said...
Sounds like they are just squeezing the properly run sites like DI and encouraging the crooked underground ones that will never pay anything! It defies belief that they think this is going to work. At the moment they are getting a healthy chunk from the internet, but soon they will get nothing because they will shut down all the stations. goose and golden egg spring to mind! -Dogfax
8:07 AM
L2 said...
Well, that's the music industry for ya. They just want the money, that's it.
9:47 AM
Yogiyosh said...
This is just another example of how greedy the music industry is, the copyright associations in the U.S and U.K mainly want to squeeze every last drop of cash out of radio stations and anybody else.
They use varying arguments that unlicensed airplay is effecting the artists, they allegedly represent. In fact the artists are well looked after.
It makes me sick to think that corporate greed will ruin internet radio stations, such as DI...which in mine and many others opinions is a truely fantastic service.
A final word; what happens when all the radio stations have been squeezed out of business due to crippling charges being levvied, I'm sure the copyright associations would have something to complain about when virtually no income was being raised?
10:36 AM
Anonymous said...
Dieter Lanckman Belgium
What can we do in Europe?
A lot of people love di
Grtz
11:14 AM
Anonymous said...
Totally sucks ... all music I listen to anymore is online. In fact it's not even available elsewhere. The actual radio stations in my area don't even come close.
Yep, time to move the servers
11:14 AM
jason said...
Well I don't know what I can do as I am from UK.
At the end of the day the artists will lose out on thousands in royalty if you go out of business and I don't think they're about to let that happen so I wouldn't worry about it. They'll accept whatever royalty you offer so just continue to do what you're doing.
Regards, JayUK.
12:01 PM
Anonymous said...
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
12:17 PM
Anonymous said...
Sigh.. *shakes fist*
12:17 PM
Anonymous said...
has anyone checked to see who the executives and backers of Soundexchange are? Are they simply a front for the major labels? Might this be a anti-trust suit waiting to happen?
12:20 PM
Anonymous said...
Can non-US citizens send lease to the congress to stop this blasphemy? If all goes down the shitter, you're always welcome to relocate to Canada where we have no laws! :D
Best of luck to everyone.
12:35 PM
Anonymous said...
Thats really awful !!!
For me this is a try to reduce the variety of the internet. Less channels, less music, only playing the mainstream-shit.
1:12 PM
Anonymous said...
this so sucks! i hope di.fm doesnt close down :( i was just about to subscribe for year, and im getting broadband in weeks time just for di!!! dont take it away, how can overseas people help?
lets all hope and pray :)
1:57 PM
Anonymous said...
i too thought relocating the servers/biz elsewhere. i'm wondering if this is a real possiblity? the jack-booted music industry may prosecute americans doing this?
2:26 PM
GABE said...
So if we did have to subscribe, how much would it be?
This SUCKS
DI.fm is one of the best things on the internet.
2:29 PM
Andy said...
We are such a weatly country and still "We don't make enough money to support ourself, so we had to go and inforce these royalties". This is sad news. Instead of doing something about wars that affect our economy we're killing small business. DI.Fm is excellent radio station, with superb playlist. I would really hate to see it go..
2:38 PM
jukommerce said...
In countries with a high tax-rate there is a lot of offshore-banking;
Even in countries where is no democracy there is an opposition;
I think quality will always survive... so we'll keep DI.FM!!!!
But for the USA this is very bad news. Your country will loose marketshare, will loose tax-income and such bad decisions have serious impact on your country's reputation.
2:49 PM
Anonymous said...
I find it irresponsible that congress would even consider such a thing. How much of that money collected actually gets to an artist and how much goes to the bureaucracy of administering it and the salaries of the board of directors of this so called non profit organization?? Working with many artists myself I know the amount collected in Royalties from these third parties are so nominal if at all - that Touring is the only way the artist makes a living. The more listeners the more likely they will have more sold out shows and merch sales.
2:56 PM
Anonymous said...
Pavel Gruev, Bulgaria
A classical case of cutting down the hen that lays golden eggs, just to get a couple of eggs this very moment.
The artists will lose most in the long run, but obviously this is of no concern to the major labels.
I really appreciate listening to your radio and sincerely hope that this stupid law will be changed.
All the best!
3:29 PM
Anonymous said...
really bad news, but aren't laws different in other countries, that di.fm would kind of move their services to another country...
not sure if this could be accomplished easy but its really bad to hear that.
3:37 PM
Rick Dawson said...
Is there anything non US people can do?
I will be putting a post on my blog shortly about this, and linking to here.
4:08 PM
Anonymous said...
I advise you send an e-mail to the folks at the RIAA and SoundExchange and tell them how many music purchases you have made in the last year because of something you heard on Internet radio.
Here is an example; the e-mail I wrote to John Simson, Executive Director of SoundExchange:
Quote:
Mr. Simson,
As an avid listener of Internet radio, I can attest to the marked increase in the amount of music purchases I have made in the last year since I became a DI.fm and RadioParadise.com listener.
I have my favorite terrestrial radio stations I listen to, as well (KINK 102 FM, Portland Oregon), but they do not completely satisfy my eclectic taste in music. As a result of my terrestrial radio listening, I have purchased three CD's in the last 12 months. As a result of my Internet radio listening, I have purchased 5 CD's and well over 150 songs from iTunes and Beatport in the last 12 months.
Internet radio reaches an audience that conventional radio formats never will. The CRB's rate hike will erect huge barriers Internet radio industry, making it an unprofitable venture and limiting choices for consumers. If you price your customers out of the market, then where is your revenue going to come from? And, if I don't get to hear music I like, I won't be buying it!
I stronly urge the RIAA and SoundExchange to reconsider their stance on this issue.
4:40 PM
Anonymous said...
I'm ashamed to be a citizen of this "free" country...
9:20 PM
Anonymous said...
For all listeners who don't live in the US I just have one warning: If the digital rights laws do not effect you directly today, they will once the record companies have assumed total control in the US. They follow the motto: "Today the US, tomorrow the world" At the moment they need the support of the US legislators. Once they have everything they want from them, they will probably move their HQ to Dubai or some other contry where they don't have to pay taxes.
And the US citizens like sheep will accept this just like they accept billions of taxpayers $ being paid to Haliburton who then moves their HQ to Dubai to avoid paying taxes.
I guess if big corporations treat US taxpayers like suckers, these citizens will behave like suckers.
Sorry for rambling ... I am mad.
9:53 PM
Anonymous said...
eh loko soy de argentina y es un bajon eso que lei ...ojala sigan como siempre asi salto de loko en mi habitacion
9:54 PM
Anonymous said...
This radio station better not close down else I will be pissed!!!
10:10 PM
Anonymous said...
This radio station better not close down else I will be pissed!!!
10:10 PM
Anonymous said...
This is stright more bs from the us gov. They just want to suck everyone dry, so they can keep all of what they get, ITS NOT LIKE PEOPLE WHO MAKE MUSIC DONT SELL IT, PEOPLE LISTEN TO IT ON DI.FM and THEN GO BUY IT! YOU ARE SUPPORTING THEM! AND THEY WANT MORE LIKE THE BLOODHOUNDS THEY ARE.
12:05 AM
Lady Rumplestiltskin said...
Do you really want to have just a few big corporations playing the music for you in the future?
Hell no! They don't even play some of the cool songs you guys have for each DIFM channel -- instead, we'll be gettin' Brittany Spears 24/7! My hearing is going NUMB just thinking about it!
Damn straight I'm sendin' a letter of concern to my congressmen and do anything to help keep Digitally Imported alive -- even for the hard rock junkies XD
12:33 AM
Anonymous said...
Sorry, this was the largest Bullshit i ever hear. Which one of all Electronic-Musicans becomes really the Money you must spend??
I think it will be under 1%.
The most people who produce some Sounds do it because them want a better World with more freedom.
The problem is the commercial RnB and HipHop- Scene, them kill the feelings and the Power from the real Music.
I was DJ since a long Time, and i can tell you that it gives millions of people who makes some Sound with the Computer. And here is the Problem; who Contact all of its and bring them the Money??
No one.
Dont spend something, it flows in the wrong direction. It flows in the capitalistic Scene who pray for War and Destruction...
We want a better World? Why we dont do?
Lovely greetings from Chris/Switzerland
4:13 AM
Anonymous said...
I'm so sorry and so sad when hearing this seriously bad news :(!
I'm currently living outside of the US and don't know how to help out you guys at Sky.fm/di.fm with at least a complaining letter to Congresspeople. Nevertheless, I've been actually a foreign audience of your Internet radio station for a pretty long time ago, since the day I incidental found out your station streaming address in my iTunes. I have to say that you guys are really cool and I appreciate your earnest endeavors to actively produce and give out such quality webcasted channels. I wish I could partly contribute something to oppose against this new music royalty rates but everything appears that outside US people is hard to exert their influence to your local government.
Best wishes to you all.
Another lovely greeting from Nguyen/Vietnam.
10:51 AM
Anonymous said...
What horrible news!
Move the office to Canada (then I have a hope of working for you too! ^_~)
Seriously, the artists make money from hard work, like concerts and shows. Its the recording studios who make all the money from the broadcasts.
If we don't keep the small and independent guys running, the world 's only choice will be Britney or Christina! We won't get to pick anything but mainstream!
I love listening to DI.fm, ever since I stumbled upon it a few months ago.
I even listen to it while playing Warcraft.
You guys are great, keep up the good work.
Let us know how us foreigners can help too!
2:53 PM
Anonymous said...
I wrote the letter, I reposted this on my blog and will be sure to put a sign up about it on Inspire Beach in second life ! We stream DI.fm chillout there 90% of the time!
Everyone loves it and I'm sure brings you new listeners everyday.
5:55 PM
Anonymous said...
corporations want to control everything!!
6:49 PM
Anonymous said...
This is horrible! I am nearly addicted to DI.FM for 2 years now, the only station without bla bla..
How can I react and make a statement? I live in Holland, Europe. I want to help.
7:42 PM
Anonymous said...
Is their something we can workout with the royalty rates. Don't get rid of the radio station. Im sure we can work something out. Let the music keep playing.
8:04 PM
Anonymous said...
DI.fm please keep fighting for us listeners we got your back. We want to help to!
8:10 PM
Anonymous said...
We pay for our membership we pay to download songs. What is the BIG problem. Everything is one hundread percent legal. Government go attack some other corporation scaming people out of money.
8:24 PM
Anonymous said...
We pay for our membership we pay to download songs. What is the BIG problem. Everything is one hundread percent legal. Government go attack some other corporation scaming people out of money.
8:24 PM
kandiravah said...
Well....looks like the government's at it again....I don't object to the artists and record companies getting what's due them....but it certainly looks like the government's out to kill off anything that's not a big corporate outlet...like Clear Channel..which owns ALL the major stations in my town....and plays absolutely nothing worth listening to. Not to mention that this would also limit exposure to anything other than what the corporate goons play...maybe it is time to move the servers to a more friendly place...
9:14 PM
Anonymous said...
If it comes down to it, I'd be happy to pay $15/mo for digitally imported. Sure beats anything the sat radio offers for the same price.
I'm not condoning what they are doing, as there doesn't seem to be any room for negotiation. And business is all about negotiation. This is just another attempt from the record companies to stifle innovation, even though they are still making money off it. I really wish the government would stay out of the business world. They can't even balance their own budget, but they'll screw up the market without even batting an eyelash.
10:27 PM
Anonymous said...
I think it is a bunch of nonsense. This has to be about the big corps wanting to step on the samll guys. Think about it, Digitally Imported is far better that any Clear Channle FM statioin I know of an they know it. So what do they do, get a judge who wants to get paid to try to shut the net radio down. A bunch of BS. I host a one man online mix show broadcast and I do not want these guys coming after me for this crap.
Did they think about how mush it already cost to host a live stream with a large number of cuncurrent listeners? WOW. I am just pissed. Pissed. Here I am trying to get a small business off the ground broadcasting and these alreay rich guys tell me I have to pay so much that I could never make it happen. Man, I am trying not to curse but I want to just say these guys are dumb mutha*&^%@s'. Let us get our and help the music scene.
1:56 AM
Anonymous said...
THEY ARE INSANE
No other better explanation.
Mp3 and radio streams stimpulate Sales for events and and artists will definetly gain more from such streams.
Abolishing them is a blasphame against helping emerging artists !
7:01 AM
John said...
Blogged it. johndball.com
8:24 AM
Anonymous said...
This is bad. Once again the music suffers and so to, do the people who listen to it. Record companies should be happy at their music being promoted, people listen, like the track/album and go and buy it. I think the artists who make it should complain also as their music is not getting the best widespread audience available. First DRM now this when will it stop!!!!!! The industry Execs are too greedy!!!
Thanks to all at DI.fm for a great choice in music and a great service.
9:56 AM
Anonymous said...
U.S. government realy disappointed me , first they banned betting and now they try to destroy all online radios !! what a pity.
Could Di.fm move offshore so can do business totally free of any charges??
Cheers.
Abtin
12:57 PM
Anonymous said...
I wrote my congressman...but frankly...why should the ARTISTS not be paid. Free radio! Sign me up! What about more commercials? (Yep...sucks...but it would pay the bills.) What about 1 month free then EVERYONE subscribes...or has to.
There is no free ride.
4:57 PM
Anonymous said...
This is not good, Im from the uk, and DI is the only station I listen to, no one else plays such a wide range of good soul grabbing music as you do.
There must be some thing we can do over here in the uk and other countries to help you guys out?
No DI, would be devastating, keep up the excellent work and carry on playing them great tunes.
Cheers guys, Luke.
5:13 PM
sprawk said...
I just sent an e-mail to both my senators (Jon Kyle & John McCain) and my Congressman (Raúl M. Grijalva) with an edited version of the original plea e-mail:
As your constituent and a fan of Internet radio, I was alarmed to learn
that music royalty rates were recently determined by the Copyright Royalty
Board (CRB) which, if enacted, would certainly silence most or all of my
favorite online listening services. For most webcasters, this royalty rate
represents more than 100% of their total revenues!
The shuttering of the webcasting industry would be a loss for not only
independent business owners, but also for musical artists, for copyright
owners, and for listeners like me who enjoy the wide variety of choices
available via Internet radio. Internet radio stations currently provide a
legal way for listeners like myself to discover new music. Often times on
the sites discussion boards you can speak with the artist, get to know
them, and I feel that this detracts from piracy. I am currently paying for
a premium subscription to an internet radio station (http://di.fm) and
feel it would be an absolute travesty to see good sites like this go down
due to a lack of light being shed on this situation.
I respectfully request that your office look into this matter and initiate
action to prevent it. As the CRB rate decision is retroactive to January
1, 2006, please understand that time is of the essence -- as the immediate
impact of this decision could silence many Internet radio stations
forever.
Sincerely,
Timothy T.
(555)555-5555
Are you a registered voter?: Yes
Did you vote in the last election?: No
Age: 19
Gender: Male
Would you like a reply?: Yes
So I hope that helps. Digg.com is big on this too.
5:13 PM
Razare said...
Wrote my congress person about this, but I don't expect it to turn out well.
It comes down to which force is greater...
Corporate $$$ or Internet Radio Listeners
Sadly, the first is much more powerful and will be for as far as anyone can tell. Decent internet radio will probably die off now.
10:39 PM
Anonymous said...
This is sad. I love this radio station!!. I really hope that you will be running for a long time. I am not american, other wise i would have wrote to my congresspeople. My heart and mind are with you in your fight.
12:01 AM
jayson knight said...
Manual trackback here: http://jaysonknight.com/blog/archive/2007/03/16/save-internet-radio.aspx
12:10 AM
Anonymous said...
SRY DI... You,ve been wonderful...
tony
1:37 PM
Vitesse said...
why do you simply broadcast from canada and play only international music. If american company doesn't have anywere to be listen maybe they change their mind? Canadian and european artiste make realy good music and not only in the electronic domain like di.fm
9:00 PM
Anonymous said...
this is horrible, i think you should make a small add about this in between tracks so more people learn about this and can help.
I hope we can fight this.
2:52 AM
Anonymous said...
from Bake_Seaweed
why don't we just play unlicensed tracks
CHEER and PEACE
6:07 AM
Anonymous said...
from Bake_Seaweed
why don't we just play unlicensed tracks... there is too many KILL OUT dj's out in this WORLD
CHEER AND PEACE
6:10 AM
Danmark said...
Similar processes are not only limited to DI.fm : sign of the times ?
Anyhow, I have messaged USA buddies to encourage them to http://www.congress.org/congressorg/issues/alert/?alertid=9461656&content_dir=ua_congressorg&mailid=custom
I didn't subscribe to DI.fm Premium to see my beloved Internet Radio station disappear !
7:20 AM
Anonymous said...
Its like you open a shop and sell bread for 5 cents, then you start to sell it at 5 dollers... guess what no one buys your bread. It dont figure..
Internet radio stations shut down... they then get no money... eh. So what is the point???
9:02 AM
Anonymous said...
I don't believe in much anymore but one thing I do is internet radio. Just another pathetic move by the music industry. I spit in their faces. Another insult that affects so many people just to make a few richer. I say off with their heads.
5:52 PM
Anonymous said...
Sounds like it's time to "sell" digitally imported to it's future parent company/shell: Digitally Imported Cayman Islands, Inc.
5:58 PM
Anonymous said...
MOVE YOUR SERVERS TO CANADA. WE LOVE DI HERE. I HAVE HOSTED PARTIES STREAMING DI! WE ARE ALL HERE TO HELP.
10:45 PM
Anonymous said...
wow!!! just another way to put people down!! cant they not just leave us HAPPY PEOPLE alone?!!!
hope it gets to b solved soon...
DI is my fav radio channel, i have played 3 different sets here and will play loads more soon, would do anything to help!!
dj deeb
3:59 AM
Anonymous said...
DI is great! I have been listening to you for over three years. I hope nothing ruins my experience with DI. By far you are the #1 broadcast station on the WWW.
12:41 PM
Anonymous said...
Land of the free HMMM
3:32 PM
BoneZ said...
DI is the greatest internet radio on the web and the only one i listen to. Anything we can do DI, you let us know. I for one am not letting DI go that easily.
4:03 PM
Anonymous said...
I know that by looking at the rates quickly, the might SEEM very high. But think about this...
Premium users pay $6.95 per month to listen to DI.FM. Using the rates outlined for 2007 (.0011 per song), and assuming that you listen to an average of 10 hours of music per week, it would cost DI.FM 75 cents ($0.75) to pay for my music royalties - leaving them with $6.20.
This might be an issue for free listening, but it certainly will not be an issue for people even a small fee to listen to music.
4:32 PM
Anonymous said...
this is bullshit!
I live in a small country town and we have almost no radio here other than local government radio.
How am i ever going to hear psychedelic music if the shut internet radio?
This just sucks
11:00 PM
Ari said...
To the person few comments above doing the calculations for Premium service: these rates apply mostly to non-subscription services, considering about 98% of our audience doesn't pay to listen this arguement is pointless as it doesn't apply to a real life scenerio.
11:51 AM
harri the greek said...
dont even think of shuting D.I down
find a way to keep us alive. we need you. no D.I no reason to live.make everybody subscribe.they dont know what they re missing.
unbelivable station and musik
I LOVE YOU.
1:48 PM
Jeff said...
This would be an insane tragedy ... di has helped me get where I am with production, and because of it, im signed. I would HATE for such a great resource and community to be shut down because people dont digg free promotion.
3:11 PM
Anonymous said...
Sigh, they're stupid aren't they eh?
What a shame that non US people can't do anything about it.
Or can they? How?
You should make the link on the main page much bigger, to be honest.
7:43 PM
Anonymous said...
Ari, this is of course the issue, these rates are not worked out on a ‘real life’ scenario.
It sounds very much to me like the person above is suggesting that this rate has been developed, to try and get money for the record industry from Internet radio listeners... now that is a surprise... not.
8:02 PM
david said...
Anyone read the press release from Soundexchange, the body who controls payments - read this section -
We believe internet radio broadcasters are our partners
and it is our strong desire to see a thriving online radio marketplace. However,
such a marketplace cannot be sustained without music, and the decision of the
CRB fully recognizes and reflects this fact.
Thriving on line... more like no more on line. And look at that, Internet radio needs music.. eh yep and it looks like you have it all Soundexchange!
8:22 PM
Anonymous said...
Looking through my congressman's letters to read box I have found at least 100 other emails on this issue. We might actually make a difference.
9:59 PM
Anonymous said...
Love the Music. Once again government has to get into peoples enjoyment of music. Can't you move your company Sky FM to a country that will welcome your music for the world to hear? Again thank you Sky fm for the coolest music on the WWW.
5:17 AM
Anonymous said...
This is one of the reasons why I am starting to dislike the Americans. They kill all the fun...
6:30 AM
Sean said...
Ari,
We are dealing with similar issues through our service. This is all such a headache.
I just sent you an email about the fact that we offer a service that might be able to help you recoup the lost $20,000 and then some.
Please drop me a line: labels [at] PlayItTonight.com
~Sean
PlayItTonight.com
1:57 PM
Ari said...
>Anonymous said... This is one of the reasons why I am starting to dislike the Americans. They kill all the fun...
In reply to that, you might as well stop listening then because this station is run by Americans and Europeans together.
It is important to keep your focus straight here and not to make generalizations. Similarly I find some posts blaming "capitalism" here or on Digg replies for this problem or all the evils of the world completely ridiculous. Remember, the problem here is that a legal body, part of the government (meaning NOT capitalist by definition), made this mess in the first place and made this mess now. Ideally things wouldn't be so regulated, because when someone wants governement regulation you can say goodbye to capitalism and hello to castrated capitalism. This is what is happening here, please be mindful of facts and let us all stick with the issue at hand please.
3:32 PM
Anonymous said...
I sincerely wish you luck in this struggle. I've been a listener for years now, a paying one for most of them. It'll be a sad day if you have to close up shop; leaving me without my favourite (and mostly only) radio channel I listen to.
4:31 PM
Anonymous said...
It will be a shame if we lose DI. But then they tried the same stuff with Napster and look what happened there. Nothings for free anymore. You can tell by the increase of ads that DI has had to run over the past year in order to pay for operations.
Time to move Ari. Either to Canada, or the EU. Set up a mirror site overseas, make it active, and then when and if (most likely when) the time comes, you just shut one down and continue with the other. Sure your hooked on NY, its your home, but trust me Canada is pretty nice too. You will probably like Toronto, or Calgary or Vancouver if you want to come out west.
By the looks of it, "free" internet radio is going the way of the dodo bird. Time for everyone to cough up if they want to hear the music.
On the good side, by being the "CEO" of such a business that already has an "addicted" audience, your paycheque can only get fatter.
I admire the struggle to keep internet radio free, but theres just too much money going around these days and everyone wants a piece.
All I ask is that you keep your rates low when the time comes, so I can afford this. Or else I will be forced to bounce from pirate radio to pirate radio.
Thanks Ari, its been a slice.
4:48 PM
Andrew said...
Just wrote my congresspersons. You should let people know about this by ads on the show.
5:53 PM
Anonymous said...
Do you really want to have just a few big corporations playing the music for you in the future?
This is a very vague statement if you ask me...
I dont want to burst your bubble Ari but your not the only online radio out there. There is plenty more reliable I could say better quality Radios then DI.FM
But the again this is my opinion, so please respect that. I hope it works out for you and di.
9:05 PM
back-words... the power of the dark side...
Wednesday, March 7, 2007
the power of the dark side...
this sort of thing is exactly why i get on my soap box about the riaa.
theyre out of control and they need to be stopped. extreme tactics of limitation always piss me off and this is no exception, by far. at some point, other ppl will get tired of the riaa as well. it cant happen too soon as far as im concerned.
maybe one day music lovers will rise against the riaa. maybe thats a dream. maybe my give-a-damn protests will inspire others to take action as i do. maybe ppl will grizzle and agree or maybe theyll just tell me to shut up. i know im not the only one to feel this way. im sure im not in a minority about feeling this way, either. no matter how i look at it- as a consumer, as a dj, as a producer- i feel in my heart the riaa is out of line, corrupt with an over-justified sense of power. they may have had a reasonable point back in the 50s but they abandoned that stance decades ago and have only grown progressively worse. its time something be done about it before its too late...
March 06, 2007
RIAA's new royalty rates will kill online radio!!
The Copyright Royalty Board (CRB) has recently released a revised fee schedule for internet radio. Left unchanged, these rates will end internet radio, period. The RIAA has effectively convinced this federal committee to establish rates that make online radio a non-viable business.
It's an utterly ridiculous ruling that renders any form of internet radio non-economic. We are continuing in the belief that sanity will return as everyone involved, including the 50 million avid online radio listeners, realize just how outrageous this is.
You can probably tell by this post that I feel strongly about this. Online radio has opened up a new world for musicians and listeners alike. It has brought millions of otherwise disconnected music-lovers back to music radio, and has opened up tremendous access and promotion for thousands of musicians - both obscure and well known.
We are striving very hard to build a business. We employ eleven full time people in our ad sales team, and despite very high licensing and streaming costs, believed that we could make it work over the next several years if internet advertising continues to grow. This ruling drives the licensing fees (fees that are NOT paid by terrestrial broadcasters) completely out of reach, and makes our goal impossible.
This is a terribly ill-conceived attempt to crush a powerful and positive grassroots movement that is sweeping across the music world. The record labels' struggles have nothing to do with online radio and killing it will further hurt their business, not help it.
We need your help. If you'd like to get involved please write your congressperson. Below is a link to point you to the right person. If you can, please send a letter or a fax that asks for a reply (emails are too easily ignored).
Congressional Directory by Zip Code
If you want to learn more details, try this informative blog post from an attorney familiar with the process:
Now more than ever, thanks for your support.
Tim (Founder)
Posted by Tim Westergren at March 6, 2007 12:49 AM
Comments
Has anyone come up with a letter that someone could use as a template for this issue?
I'm finding it difficult to succinctly articulate the issue in a letter to my rep's in Congress.
Posted by: Matt at March 6, 2007 08:06 AM
Move to Europe. The RIAA can't bankrupt you there. Make friends with Last.fm while you're over there.
Posted by: Mr. Gunn at March 6, 2007 10:04 AM
There's a letter template over at: http://www.savenetradio.org/ (under the first bullet).
Is Pandora affected by this??? Acording to the cited blog -- the new rules don't apply to "interactive" webcasters.
Posted by: Peter B at March 6, 2007 12:18 PM
This letter looks like a good example: http://www.congress.org/congressorg/bio/userletter/?letter_id=1088793686
Posted by: Chris at March 6, 2007 12:24 PM
It's a good idea to send RIAA a couple of links to some good internet radios (including this one!) and show this actually helps the music business. Big time.
Posted by: D W at March 6, 2007 02:38 PM
Is it possible to get EFF involved? With their help, the message may get louder and stronger.
Posted by: David Kleiner at March 6, 2007 02:47 PM
This really ruined my day. Surely there is a way around this, such as moving your operation overseas.
Posted by: David McBride at March 6, 2007 03:26 PM
Thanks for the comments, folks. Re. Peter B.'s post, these affect ALL webcasters with an ad-supported service. They definitely affect us. Tim (Founder)
Posted by: Tim Westergren at March 6, 2007 05:54 PM
If they weren't so blind, they'd actually realize that internet radio promoted artists. But I guess, all they see is green - such that they just overlook it all.
Posted by: Alex at March 6, 2007 08:46 PM
http://www.petitiononline.com/SIR2007r/petition.html
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/issues/alert/?alertid=9461656&content_dir=ua_congressorg&mailid=custom
Posted by: Alex at March 6, 2007 08:48 PM
Amazing... I was stunned to hear about this the other day. It reminds me of the 'pauper jails' where they would arrest people who couldn't pay taxes thinking that would increase revenue.
Crazy
Posted by: John at March 6, 2007 10:23 PM
Here is an online petition that you can sign. Please sign up if you agree at:
http://www.petitiononline.com/SIR2007r/
It states:
As a fan of Internet radio, I was alarmed to learn that music royalty rates were recently determined by the Copyright Royalty Board (CRB) which, if enacted, would certainly silence most or all of my favorite online listening services. For most webcasters, this royalty rate represents more than 100% of their total revenues!
The shuttering of the webcasting industry would be a loss for not only independent business owners, but also for musical artists, for copyright owners, and for listeners like me who enjoy the wide variety of choices available via Internet radio.
I respectfully request that Congress look into this matter and initiate action to prevent it. As the CRB rate decision is retroactive to January 1, 2006, please understand that time is of the essence -- as the immediate impact of this decision could silence many free Internet radio stations forever.
Posted by: m at March 7, 2007 02:20 AM
In any case, I wouldn't be too optimistic and assume that a reasonable decision on appeal will be forthcoming.
If I were running a webcast, I think it would be prudent to prepare a "poison pill" just in case. Forcing an entire industry into bankruptcy is something that has happened before and will happen again. (e.g. in transportation it was the ICC rulings and the Penn-Central merger) I have heard some people observe that suing under fair-trade practices via NAFTA may be feasible (if you move internationally), although I think this is a stretch.
In this case, being essentially considered a criminal (and yes, they do consider legitimate webcasters criminals-- it's only a matter of time before they come out and say it...) even though you have tried to play by the rules is wrong, but otherwise unremarkable.
What did you think would happen? With RIAA raids on businesses for mixtaping by their own member-artists, with the Pirate's Bay getting raided illegally in Sweden (outside US jurisdiction)-- what do you think would happen?
The Big Labels will stop at nothing, even if you try to appease them. I have never downloaded music illegally, but with the confusing rash of laws anyone may find themselves harrassed and baselessly sued, either individuals or companies.
Don't expect fair play, non-DRMed tracks, or ethics.
As a last resort, I would seriously consider dumping your company's music files into a data repository overseas. Be sure to make backups-- I'll see you on the other side.
Posted by: Joe at March 7, 2007 06:25 AM
Sucesso para vocês!!
Roberto from Brazil.
Posted by: Roberto da Paixão at March 7, 2007 06:44 AM
This will even affect those that aren't ad-supported. I run a small hobby radio station and this will surely shut down my station!
Posted by: Sam at March 7, 2007 09:47 AM
I read an article about this in today's Wall Street Journal (3.7.07), and quite frankly, am sickened. Pandora isn't my only Internet radio destination. For me there's also Radio Paradise, SOMA FM, and many others. And that's the point -- options, creativity, and diverse independent music! Please avail yourself of the options on these sites, particularly Radio Paradise, for signing the online petition and contacting your Congressional representative. It's ridiculous that on one hand Congress would consider banning the merger of Sirius and XM Radio due to concerns about limiting listener choice, and at the same time let these royalty rates pass. Pandora people, I haven't logged onto the home page yet, but am hoping you create a link (if you haven't done so already) to create attention to this situation.
Posted by: Steve D at March 7, 2007 10:21 AM
I will write my representatives.
Another suggestion: Any of you who have purchased music from the independent studios or artists you have found on Pandora (or elsewhere on the internet)should go to the contact links on their web sites,let them know where you found their music and ask them to weigh in against this - with both RIAA and the congress.
Obviously, RIAA is captive of the big producers, or they wouldn't be trying to kill off the only effective free advertising available for these independent labels.
Posted by: Tom Nield at March 7, 2007 12:01 PM
I'll let my reps know. But plan for the worst. What do you think of Aruba?
Posted by: CTD at March 7, 2007 01:28 PM
Why laws in another country have to affect me and everyone else otside???
Internet radio supports new artists making music market hard to control by transnational music labels.They think that in a near future they wont be able to manipulate music trends any more (maybe they alredy have loose control) .
Don't forget that they are loosing audience on his media due the lack of good options
I mean has anyone listened how bad music is in air wave radio9stations thse days
Posted by: Francisco at March 7, 2007 01:56 PM
Like Steve I really enjoy Pandora and other Internet radio stations like Radio Paradise. I'm including a link to the online petition I've already signed in case it can help. http://www.petitiononline.com/SIR2007r/petition.html
The world is run by those who GET INVOLVED, so do all you can to stand up and keep Internet radio alive!
Posted by: Heather at March 7, 2007 02:04 PM
© 2005-2007 Pandora Media, Inc., All Rights Reserved
Pandora and the Music Genome Project are registered trademarks of Pandora Media, Inc.
the power of the dark side...
this sort of thing is exactly why i get on my soap box about the riaa.
theyre out of control and they need to be stopped. extreme tactics of limitation always piss me off and this is no exception, by far. at some point, other ppl will get tired of the riaa as well. it cant happen too soon as far as im concerned.
maybe one day music lovers will rise against the riaa. maybe thats a dream. maybe my give-a-damn protests will inspire others to take action as i do. maybe ppl will grizzle and agree or maybe theyll just tell me to shut up. i know im not the only one to feel this way. im sure im not in a minority about feeling this way, either. no matter how i look at it- as a consumer, as a dj, as a producer- i feel in my heart the riaa is out of line, corrupt with an over-justified sense of power. they may have had a reasonable point back in the 50s but they abandoned that stance decades ago and have only grown progressively worse. its time something be done about it before its too late...
March 06, 2007
RIAA's new royalty rates will kill online radio!!
The Copyright Royalty Board (CRB) has recently released a revised fee schedule for internet radio. Left unchanged, these rates will end internet radio, period. The RIAA has effectively convinced this federal committee to establish rates that make online radio a non-viable business.
It's an utterly ridiculous ruling that renders any form of internet radio non-economic. We are continuing in the belief that sanity will return as everyone involved, including the 50 million avid online radio listeners, realize just how outrageous this is.
You can probably tell by this post that I feel strongly about this. Online radio has opened up a new world for musicians and listeners alike. It has brought millions of otherwise disconnected music-lovers back to music radio, and has opened up tremendous access and promotion for thousands of musicians - both obscure and well known.
We are striving very hard to build a business. We employ eleven full time people in our ad sales team, and despite very high licensing and streaming costs, believed that we could make it work over the next several years if internet advertising continues to grow. This ruling drives the licensing fees (fees that are NOT paid by terrestrial broadcasters) completely out of reach, and makes our goal impossible.
This is a terribly ill-conceived attempt to crush a powerful and positive grassroots movement that is sweeping across the music world. The record labels' struggles have nothing to do with online radio and killing it will further hurt their business, not help it.
We need your help. If you'd like to get involved please write your congressperson. Below is a link to point you to the right person. If you can, please send a letter or a fax that asks for a reply (emails are too easily ignored).
Congressional Directory by Zip Code
If you want to learn more details, try this informative blog post from an attorney familiar with the process:
Now more than ever, thanks for your support.
Tim (Founder)
Posted by Tim Westergren at March 6, 2007 12:49 AM
Comments
Has anyone come up with a letter that someone could use as a template for this issue?
I'm finding it difficult to succinctly articulate the issue in a letter to my rep's in Congress.
Posted by: Matt at March 6, 2007 08:06 AM
Move to Europe. The RIAA can't bankrupt you there. Make friends with Last.fm while you're over there.
Posted by: Mr. Gunn at March 6, 2007 10:04 AM
There's a letter template over at: http://www.savenetradio.org/ (under the first bullet).
Is Pandora affected by this??? Acording to the cited blog -- the new rules don't apply to "interactive" webcasters.
Posted by: Peter B at March 6, 2007 12:18 PM
This letter looks like a good example: http://www.congress.org/congressorg/bio/userletter/?letter_id=1088793686
Posted by: Chris at March 6, 2007 12:24 PM
It's a good idea to send RIAA a couple of links to some good internet radios (including this one!) and show this actually helps the music business. Big time.
Posted by: D W at March 6, 2007 02:38 PM
Is it possible to get EFF involved? With their help, the message may get louder and stronger.
Posted by: David Kleiner at March 6, 2007 02:47 PM
This really ruined my day. Surely there is a way around this, such as moving your operation overseas.
Posted by: David McBride at March 6, 2007 03:26 PM
Thanks for the comments, folks. Re. Peter B.'s post, these affect ALL webcasters with an ad-supported service. They definitely affect us. Tim (Founder)
Posted by: Tim Westergren at March 6, 2007 05:54 PM
If they weren't so blind, they'd actually realize that internet radio promoted artists. But I guess, all they see is green - such that they just overlook it all.
Posted by: Alex at March 6, 2007 08:46 PM
http://www.petitiononline.com/SIR2007r/petition.html
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/issues/alert/?alertid=9461656&content_dir=ua_congressorg&mailid=custom
Posted by: Alex at March 6, 2007 08:48 PM
Amazing... I was stunned to hear about this the other day. It reminds me of the 'pauper jails' where they would arrest people who couldn't pay taxes thinking that would increase revenue.
Crazy
Posted by: John at March 6, 2007 10:23 PM
Here is an online petition that you can sign. Please sign up if you agree at:
http://www.petitiononline.com/SIR2007r/
It states:
As a fan of Internet radio, I was alarmed to learn that music royalty rates were recently determined by the Copyright Royalty Board (CRB) which, if enacted, would certainly silence most or all of my favorite online listening services. For most webcasters, this royalty rate represents more than 100% of their total revenues!
The shuttering of the webcasting industry would be a loss for not only independent business owners, but also for musical artists, for copyright owners, and for listeners like me who enjoy the wide variety of choices available via Internet radio.
I respectfully request that Congress look into this matter and initiate action to prevent it. As the CRB rate decision is retroactive to January 1, 2006, please understand that time is of the essence -- as the immediate impact of this decision could silence many free Internet radio stations forever.
Posted by: m at March 7, 2007 02:20 AM
In any case, I wouldn't be too optimistic and assume that a reasonable decision on appeal will be forthcoming.
If I were running a webcast, I think it would be prudent to prepare a "poison pill" just in case. Forcing an entire industry into bankruptcy is something that has happened before and will happen again. (e.g. in transportation it was the ICC rulings and the Penn-Central merger) I have heard some people observe that suing under fair-trade practices via NAFTA may be feasible (if you move internationally), although I think this is a stretch.
In this case, being essentially considered a criminal (and yes, they do consider legitimate webcasters criminals-- it's only a matter of time before they come out and say it...) even though you have tried to play by the rules is wrong, but otherwise unremarkable.
What did you think would happen? With RIAA raids on businesses for mixtaping by their own member-artists, with the Pirate's Bay getting raided illegally in Sweden (outside US jurisdiction)-- what do you think would happen?
The Big Labels will stop at nothing, even if you try to appease them. I have never downloaded music illegally, but with the confusing rash of laws anyone may find themselves harrassed and baselessly sued, either individuals or companies.
Don't expect fair play, non-DRMed tracks, or ethics.
As a last resort, I would seriously consider dumping your company's music files into a data repository overseas. Be sure to make backups-- I'll see you on the other side.
Posted by: Joe at March 7, 2007 06:25 AM
Sucesso para vocês!!
Roberto from Brazil.
Posted by: Roberto da Paixão at March 7, 2007 06:44 AM
This will even affect those that aren't ad-supported. I run a small hobby radio station and this will surely shut down my station!
Posted by: Sam at March 7, 2007 09:47 AM
I read an article about this in today's Wall Street Journal (3.7.07), and quite frankly, am sickened. Pandora isn't my only Internet radio destination. For me there's also Radio Paradise, SOMA FM, and many others. And that's the point -- options, creativity, and diverse independent music! Please avail yourself of the options on these sites, particularly Radio Paradise, for signing the online petition and contacting your Congressional representative. It's ridiculous that on one hand Congress would consider banning the merger of Sirius and XM Radio due to concerns about limiting listener choice, and at the same time let these royalty rates pass. Pandora people, I haven't logged onto the home page yet, but am hoping you create a link (if you haven't done so already) to create attention to this situation.
Posted by: Steve D at March 7, 2007 10:21 AM
I will write my representatives.
Another suggestion: Any of you who have purchased music from the independent studios or artists you have found on Pandora (or elsewhere on the internet)should go to the contact links on their web sites,let them know where you found their music and ask them to weigh in against this - with both RIAA and the congress.
Obviously, RIAA is captive of the big producers, or they wouldn't be trying to kill off the only effective free advertising available for these independent labels.
Posted by: Tom Nield at March 7, 2007 12:01 PM
I'll let my reps know. But plan for the worst. What do you think of Aruba?
Posted by: CTD at March 7, 2007 01:28 PM
Why laws in another country have to affect me and everyone else otside???
Internet radio supports new artists making music market hard to control by transnational music labels.They think that in a near future they wont be able to manipulate music trends any more (maybe they alredy have loose control) .
Don't forget that they are loosing audience on his media due the lack of good options
I mean has anyone listened how bad music is in air wave radio9stations thse days
Posted by: Francisco at March 7, 2007 01:56 PM
Like Steve I really enjoy Pandora and other Internet radio stations like Radio Paradise. I'm including a link to the online petition I've already signed in case it can help. http://www.petitiononline.com/SIR2007r/petition.html
The world is run by those who GET INVOLVED, so do all you can to stand up and keep Internet radio alive!
Posted by: Heather at March 7, 2007 02:04 PM
© 2005-2007 Pandora Media, Inc., All Rights Reserved
Pandora and the Music Genome Project are registered trademarks of Pandora Media, Inc.
back-words... now hear this, or, say what? - part 2
Sunday, March 4, 2007
now hear this, or, say what? - part 2
believe it or not, a "conclusion" to last week's case has finally arrived and as anticipated, an appeal will be made. of course, regardless who came out on top in this ruling, an appeal was going to be made because thats just how bad corporate bureaucracy gets...
frankly, i dont care about the point, itself, or their debate. all they, the corporations, care about is money. thats not the bottom line for me, a consumer of mp3 technology. i am concerned about how this will affect the user, because you know thats where all those dollar signs eventually come from- the little guy. this little guy is against potential price increases and fees for products and services utilizing mp3 technology.
i also fear this could increase the already rising rate of piracy, resulting in increased product/service rates in compensation for loss due to piracy. that makes a difficult and tempting decision for those trying to play by the rules. money is so overrated- lets go back to beads...
Judge rules for Microsoft in Alcatel-Lucent suit
Fri Mar 2, 2:21 PM ET
A U.S. federal judge dismissed Alcatel-Lucent's (ALU.PA)(NYSE:ALU - news) patent claim against Microsoft Corp. (Nasdaq:MSFT - news) over technology that converts speech into text, the two companies said on Friday.
The ruling made late Thursday comes one week after a jury found that the world's largest software maker infringed on audio patents held by Alcatel-Lucent and ordered the company to pay $1.52 billion in damages.
U.S. District Judge Rudi Brewster in San Diego dismissed all of Alcatel-Lucent's claims in a summary judgment, meaning that the jury trial set to begin on March 19 will not take place. Alcatel-Lucent said it plans to appeal the ruling.
"We've made strong arguments supporting our view," said Alcatel-Lucent spokeswoman Joan Campion. "We're comfortable with our chances of success."
Microsoft and Alcatel-Lucent are locked in a number of patent disputes including a suit over the video-coding technology in Microsoft's Xbox 360 video game console.
"This ruling reaffirms our confidence that once there's judicial review of these complex patent cases, these Alcatel-Lucent claims ultimately won't stand up," said Tom Burt, Microsoft's deputy general counsel.
Last week's $1.52 billion award for Alcatel-Lucent was the largest ever in a U.S. patent case. The award is expected to fuel a push by computer and software makers to overhaul the U.S. patent system.
Microsoft has said it plans to ask a judge to knock down the award and will appeal if necessary.
now hear this, or, say what? - part 2
believe it or not, a "conclusion" to last week's case has finally arrived and as anticipated, an appeal will be made. of course, regardless who came out on top in this ruling, an appeal was going to be made because thats just how bad corporate bureaucracy gets...
frankly, i dont care about the point, itself, or their debate. all they, the corporations, care about is money. thats not the bottom line for me, a consumer of mp3 technology. i am concerned about how this will affect the user, because you know thats where all those dollar signs eventually come from- the little guy. this little guy is against potential price increases and fees for products and services utilizing mp3 technology.
i also fear this could increase the already rising rate of piracy, resulting in increased product/service rates in compensation for loss due to piracy. that makes a difficult and tempting decision for those trying to play by the rules. money is so overrated- lets go back to beads...
Judge rules for Microsoft in Alcatel-Lucent suit
Fri Mar 2, 2:21 PM ET
A U.S. federal judge dismissed Alcatel-Lucent's (ALU.PA)(NYSE:ALU - news) patent claim against Microsoft Corp. (Nasdaq:MSFT - news) over technology that converts speech into text, the two companies said on Friday.
The ruling made late Thursday comes one week after a jury found that the world's largest software maker infringed on audio patents held by Alcatel-Lucent and ordered the company to pay $1.52 billion in damages.
U.S. District Judge Rudi Brewster in San Diego dismissed all of Alcatel-Lucent's claims in a summary judgment, meaning that the jury trial set to begin on March 19 will not take place. Alcatel-Lucent said it plans to appeal the ruling.
"We've made strong arguments supporting our view," said Alcatel-Lucent spokeswoman Joan Campion. "We're comfortable with our chances of success."
Microsoft and Alcatel-Lucent are locked in a number of patent disputes including a suit over the video-coding technology in Microsoft's Xbox 360 video game console.
"This ruling reaffirms our confidence that once there's judicial review of these complex patent cases, these Alcatel-Lucent claims ultimately won't stand up," said Tom Burt, Microsoft's deputy general counsel.
Last week's $1.52 billion award for Alcatel-Lucent was the largest ever in a U.S. patent case. The award is expected to fuel a push by computer and software makers to overhaul the U.S. patent system.
Microsoft has said it plans to ask a judge to knock down the award and will appeal if necessary.
back-words... now hear this, or, say what?
Sunday, February 25, 2007
now hear this, or, say what?
this is an unseeming sequel/supplemental chapter to what i was talking about recently regarding music and rights and formats. it comes as no shock how money-grubbing corporations can be about business conducted decades previously, whether it was right or not. sometimes you need to accept the past as being in the past and move on, while learning from mistakes if possible. once again, here we have another argument about mp3 formats, but it isnt about which is better. no, this time its a revival of a nearly 20 year old dispute over patent licensing and subsequent arrangements. honestly, everyone and his brother have made use of playing and recording mp3 formatted sound documents, not to mention codecs. there are countless codec sources. is there really a point to all this any more? by now, it would seem that mp3 has become public domain and should be officially declared as such. as it is, there are so many other formats available that it really doesnt matter. this feels like a technological version of abbott & costello's "who's on first" skit. sure everything is based on something else by now; it only makes sense that would happen. its like building off the wheel- balls, hoops, cars, bicycles, carts, yo-yos, etc. should everyone be clamoring over who had the first version and whos remake is based on it? no, nor do they. i submit that neither should the technology industry behave so ridiculously. it feels like a playground and the industry needs someone to play kindergarten cop; its inane.
MP3's Loss, Open Source's Gain
By Eliot Van Buskirk
Alcatel-Lucent isn't the only winner in a federal jury's $1.52 billion patent infringement award against Microsoft this week. Other beneficiaries are the many rivals to the MP3 audio-compression format.
Backers of alternative formats have sought for years to replace MP3, which offers relatively lower quality sound than next-generation technologies -- including the nominal successor to MP3 itself, MP3Pro. Apple uses the MPEG industry standard, AAC; Microsoft uses its proprietary Windows Media format; and Sony has developed its own, largely ignored flavor. Open-source, royalty-free options, such as Ogg Vorbis, remain dark horse competitors. But none have displaced MP3, the first and most widely adopted format of all.
Now, with a cloud over the de facto industry standard, companies that rely on MP3 may finally have sufficient motivation to move on. And that raises some tantalizing possibilities, including a real long shot: Open-source, royalty-free formats win.
It's not immediately clear what the implications of Thursday's judgment are for other MP3 licensees, which include hundreds of companies who already pay royalties to Fraunhofer/Thomson -- previously accepted as the only licensor of MP3 technology.
Microsoft has 1.52 billion reasons to paint this as a disaster, not only for itself but for the entire industry. So says Tom Burt, Microsoft's corporate vice president and deputy general counsel.
"If this verdict is allowed to stand, companies will have to make hard choices about whether to continue to offer MP3 technology," he said in a statement sent to Wired News late Thursday. Licensees would have to "pay twice for the same technology -- one standard charge to the industry-recognized licensee of MP3 (Fraunhofer/Thomson), and again, an unprecedented amount to Alcatel-Lucent."
In truth, nothing has yet been decided. Microsoft plans to ask the judge to reduce the damage award and will appeal, according to a source close to the matter, so the ruling could yet be overturned or limited. On Thursday, an attorney for Alcatel-Lucent would not rule out the possibility of an all-out licensing campaign should the verdict stand; but he also acknowledged that the long-term result is very much up in the air.
"It wouldn't make sense to start suing everyone else until this case is resolved on the merits," said John Desmarais of Kirkland & Ellis.
Although Thomson is widely accepted as the licensor of Fraunhofer's MP3 codec, Alcatel-Lucent holds two MP3-related patents upheld by a jury yesterday: 5341457 and RE39080. (Neither patent is included in Fraunhofer/Thomson's suite.)
This confusing state of affairs started in the 1980s, when AT&T's Bell Labs and Fraunhofer started developing the codec under an agreement that both companies would be able to license aspects of MP3 developed during the collaboration. AT&T, which later became Alcatel-Lucent, spun Fraunhofer off in 1996, which then began licensing MP3 technology through Thomson.
A source close to the matter said when Lucent hit a rough patch financially after the dot-com bubble exploded, the company started looking to its patents as a means of pulling itself back into the black. Microsoft actually commenced the lawsuit that led to Thursday's verdict when it asked a judge to block Lucent's patent claims in order to protect its partners Dell and Gateway. After Alcatel bought Lucent last year, some onlookers thought the matter might end there. But Alcatel, sensing that there might be gold in those patents, decided to keep pursuing the suits. Audio is just the beginning; Alcatel-Lucent's patents for video, speech and user interface are still being contested.
In an e-mail to Wired News, IDC analyst Susan Kevorkian said she believes Alcatel-Lucent may have a legitimate claim to some of the MP3 royalties, but the proper target should be Frauenhofer and not its licensees.
"It looks like there's a flaw in the way that MP3 technology is being licensed, and that Alcatel-Lucent should have been cut into the licensing revenue from the beginning," she said. "If this is the case, then the dispute is between Alcatel-Lucent and Fraunhofer (and other contributors to the MP3 patent), and not between Alcatel-Lucent and MP3 licensees, including Microsoft."
It's hard to say which companies will be affected by Thursday's award. Those wishing to use MP3 have traditionally been subject to two sets of rules for using the codec: one for encoding, and another for playback. If the two patents upheld by the jury today apply only to products that encode audio into MP3s, the ruling would affect only companies such as Apple, Microsoft, Yahoo and others offering software that lets consumers make their own MP3 files.
If they cover playback too, every company involved even tangentially with MP3 stands to lose big. Microsoft's licensing bill for Thomson/Fraunhofer was only $16 million -- about 1 percent of what it now owes Alcatel-Lucent. A significant number of the companies who offer MP3 encoders and/or players could face a similar judgment, with many being driven out of business.
Regardless of the ultimate outcome, it's clear that a cloud of uncertainty now hangs over the MP3 format, and that alone could drive developers and manufacturers to less litigious pastures.
AAC is one potential alternative. The format achieves greater fidelity at higher compression rates than MP3 and has been licensed by Apple for its iTunes music store. Apple wraps AAC is a proprietary digital rights management scheme known as Fairplay that renders it unusable outside Apple's ecosystem. But AAC itself is an open format based on industry standard MPEG-4 technology. It's not royalty free, but with standards backing it's likely the strongest contender for a universal digital audio format.
Microsoft's Windows Media format similarly offers better performance than MP3 and could also see a boost, though it too includes a digital rights management component that has hampered its acceptance in the market.
One of the most interesting contenders is Ogg Vorbis, an open-source, royalty-free rival to MP3 that also represents a generational improvement in sound quality.
Microsoft has already used it for XBox games (Halo for PC was the first game with 100 percent Ogg Vorbis audio), and considering the way the MP3 licensing structure appears to be crumbling, switching to an open-source codec could start looking like a better idea with each passing day.
Vorbis is not a slam-dunk, however. Notably, its royalty-free claims have not been sanctioned by MP3 patent-holders and companies that adopt it could wind up with exactly the same legal headaches that Microsoft suffered this week over MP3. In fact, despite its longstanding regard among digital music aficionados, Ogg Vorbis has been unable to make serious commercial in-roads.
Some well-known devices and services support Ogg, notably some flash-based and hard-disk portable players from iRiver, but other devices are hampered by the amount of memory available on their DSP chips, and so cannot be upgraded to Ogg, according to Chris Montgomery, the creator of Ogg Vorbis.
Apple's iPod doesn't support Ogg now, but according to Montgomery, "ARM-based players like the iPod are ideal for decoding Vorbis." Apple could add Ogg Vorbis support to the iPod with a simple firmware update. Montgomery also told Wired News that Apple has had "several chances" to add Ogg support, but "passed each time."
Considering Steve Jobs' tough talk about getting rid of DRM, perhaps he'd be willing to go one better and switch from AAC to an open-source codec.
Added to the technical and political hurdles are non-technical obstacles to Apple and other manufacturers embracing Ogg Vorbis. Montgomery, who has had a lot of experience trying to convince manufacturers to adopt the codec, said the first problem with Ogg adoption is that "lawyers are paid to say 'no.'"
The second is that the same patents now being squabbled over by licensors of the MP3 codec could eventually threaten Ogg Vorbis. "To this day, we still have lawyers tell us they won't support Ogg because Thomson would come after them," Montgomery said.
now hear this, or, say what?
this is an unseeming sequel/supplemental chapter to what i was talking about recently regarding music and rights and formats. it comes as no shock how money-grubbing corporations can be about business conducted decades previously, whether it was right or not. sometimes you need to accept the past as being in the past and move on, while learning from mistakes if possible. once again, here we have another argument about mp3 formats, but it isnt about which is better. no, this time its a revival of a nearly 20 year old dispute over patent licensing and subsequent arrangements. honestly, everyone and his brother have made use of playing and recording mp3 formatted sound documents, not to mention codecs. there are countless codec sources. is there really a point to all this any more? by now, it would seem that mp3 has become public domain and should be officially declared as such. as it is, there are so many other formats available that it really doesnt matter. this feels like a technological version of abbott & costello's "who's on first" skit. sure everything is based on something else by now; it only makes sense that would happen. its like building off the wheel- balls, hoops, cars, bicycles, carts, yo-yos, etc. should everyone be clamoring over who had the first version and whos remake is based on it? no, nor do they. i submit that neither should the technology industry behave so ridiculously. it feels like a playground and the industry needs someone to play kindergarten cop; its inane.
MP3's Loss, Open Source's Gain
By Eliot Van Buskirk
Alcatel-Lucent isn't the only winner in a federal jury's $1.52 billion patent infringement award against Microsoft this week. Other beneficiaries are the many rivals to the MP3 audio-compression format.
Backers of alternative formats have sought for years to replace MP3, which offers relatively lower quality sound than next-generation technologies -- including the nominal successor to MP3 itself, MP3Pro. Apple uses the MPEG industry standard, AAC; Microsoft uses its proprietary Windows Media format; and Sony has developed its own, largely ignored flavor. Open-source, royalty-free options, such as Ogg Vorbis, remain dark horse competitors. But none have displaced MP3, the first and most widely adopted format of all.
Now, with a cloud over the de facto industry standard, companies that rely on MP3 may finally have sufficient motivation to move on. And that raises some tantalizing possibilities, including a real long shot: Open-source, royalty-free formats win.
It's not immediately clear what the implications of Thursday's judgment are for other MP3 licensees, which include hundreds of companies who already pay royalties to Fraunhofer/Thomson -- previously accepted as the only licensor of MP3 technology.
Microsoft has 1.52 billion reasons to paint this as a disaster, not only for itself but for the entire industry. So says Tom Burt, Microsoft's corporate vice president and deputy general counsel.
"If this verdict is allowed to stand, companies will have to make hard choices about whether to continue to offer MP3 technology," he said in a statement sent to Wired News late Thursday. Licensees would have to "pay twice for the same technology -- one standard charge to the industry-recognized licensee of MP3 (Fraunhofer/Thomson), and again, an unprecedented amount to Alcatel-Lucent."
In truth, nothing has yet been decided. Microsoft plans to ask the judge to reduce the damage award and will appeal, according to a source close to the matter, so the ruling could yet be overturned or limited. On Thursday, an attorney for Alcatel-Lucent would not rule out the possibility of an all-out licensing campaign should the verdict stand; but he also acknowledged that the long-term result is very much up in the air.
"It wouldn't make sense to start suing everyone else until this case is resolved on the merits," said John Desmarais of Kirkland & Ellis.
Although Thomson is widely accepted as the licensor of Fraunhofer's MP3 codec, Alcatel-Lucent holds two MP3-related patents upheld by a jury yesterday: 5341457 and RE39080. (Neither patent is included in Fraunhofer/Thomson's suite.)
This confusing state of affairs started in the 1980s, when AT&T's Bell Labs and Fraunhofer started developing the codec under an agreement that both companies would be able to license aspects of MP3 developed during the collaboration. AT&T, which later became Alcatel-Lucent, spun Fraunhofer off in 1996, which then began licensing MP3 technology through Thomson.
A source close to the matter said when Lucent hit a rough patch financially after the dot-com bubble exploded, the company started looking to its patents as a means of pulling itself back into the black. Microsoft actually commenced the lawsuit that led to Thursday's verdict when it asked a judge to block Lucent's patent claims in order to protect its partners Dell and Gateway. After Alcatel bought Lucent last year, some onlookers thought the matter might end there. But Alcatel, sensing that there might be gold in those patents, decided to keep pursuing the suits. Audio is just the beginning; Alcatel-Lucent's patents for video, speech and user interface are still being contested.
In an e-mail to Wired News, IDC analyst Susan Kevorkian said she believes Alcatel-Lucent may have a legitimate claim to some of the MP3 royalties, but the proper target should be Frauenhofer and not its licensees.
"It looks like there's a flaw in the way that MP3 technology is being licensed, and that Alcatel-Lucent should have been cut into the licensing revenue from the beginning," she said. "If this is the case, then the dispute is between Alcatel-Lucent and Fraunhofer (and other contributors to the MP3 patent), and not between Alcatel-Lucent and MP3 licensees, including Microsoft."
It's hard to say which companies will be affected by Thursday's award. Those wishing to use MP3 have traditionally been subject to two sets of rules for using the codec: one for encoding, and another for playback. If the two patents upheld by the jury today apply only to products that encode audio into MP3s, the ruling would affect only companies such as Apple, Microsoft, Yahoo and others offering software that lets consumers make their own MP3 files.
If they cover playback too, every company involved even tangentially with MP3 stands to lose big. Microsoft's licensing bill for Thomson/Fraunhofer was only $16 million -- about 1 percent of what it now owes Alcatel-Lucent. A significant number of the companies who offer MP3 encoders and/or players could face a similar judgment, with many being driven out of business.
Regardless of the ultimate outcome, it's clear that a cloud of uncertainty now hangs over the MP3 format, and that alone could drive developers and manufacturers to less litigious pastures.
AAC is one potential alternative. The format achieves greater fidelity at higher compression rates than MP3 and has been licensed by Apple for its iTunes music store. Apple wraps AAC is a proprietary digital rights management scheme known as Fairplay that renders it unusable outside Apple's ecosystem. But AAC itself is an open format based on industry standard MPEG-4 technology. It's not royalty free, but with standards backing it's likely the strongest contender for a universal digital audio format.
Microsoft's Windows Media format similarly offers better performance than MP3 and could also see a boost, though it too includes a digital rights management component that has hampered its acceptance in the market.
One of the most interesting contenders is Ogg Vorbis, an open-source, royalty-free rival to MP3 that also represents a generational improvement in sound quality.
Microsoft has already used it for XBox games (Halo for PC was the first game with 100 percent Ogg Vorbis audio), and considering the way the MP3 licensing structure appears to be crumbling, switching to an open-source codec could start looking like a better idea with each passing day.
Vorbis is not a slam-dunk, however. Notably, its royalty-free claims have not been sanctioned by MP3 patent-holders and companies that adopt it could wind up with exactly the same legal headaches that Microsoft suffered this week over MP3. In fact, despite its longstanding regard among digital music aficionados, Ogg Vorbis has been unable to make serious commercial in-roads.
Some well-known devices and services support Ogg, notably some flash-based and hard-disk portable players from iRiver, but other devices are hampered by the amount of memory available on their DSP chips, and so cannot be upgraded to Ogg, according to Chris Montgomery, the creator of Ogg Vorbis.
Apple's iPod doesn't support Ogg now, but according to Montgomery, "ARM-based players like the iPod are ideal for decoding Vorbis." Apple could add Ogg Vorbis support to the iPod with a simple firmware update. Montgomery also told Wired News that Apple has had "several chances" to add Ogg support, but "passed each time."
Considering Steve Jobs' tough talk about getting rid of DRM, perhaps he'd be willing to go one better and switch from AAC to an open-source codec.
Added to the technical and political hurdles are non-technical obstacles to Apple and other manufacturers embracing Ogg Vorbis. Montgomery, who has had a lot of experience trying to convince manufacturers to adopt the codec, said the first problem with Ogg adoption is that "lawyers are paid to say 'no.'"
The second is that the same patents now being squabbled over by licensors of the MP3 codec could eventually threaten Ogg Vorbis. "To this day, we still have lawyers tell us they won't support Ogg because Thomson would come after them," Montgomery said.
back-words... who wrote that???
Thursday, February 17, 2007
who wrote that???
i came across this while researching a net label recently and thought it was worth sharing. not only do i like the label (magnatune) and what they stand for, but i also liked this article. the thing i was not prepared for was to learn courtney love wrote this, but i must admit i have some newly found respect for her. i think her point is valid regardless of genre. it is also along the lines of what i usually write about, so without further ado...
Courtney Love does the math
The controversial singer takes on record label profits, Napster and "sucka VCs."
By Courtney Love
June 14, 2000
Today I want to talk about piracy and music. What is piracy? Piracy is the act of stealing an artist's work without any intention of paying for it. I'm not talking about Napster-type software.
I'm talking about major label recording contracts.
I want to start with a story about rock bands and record companies, and do some recording-contract math:
This story is about a bidding-war band that gets a huge deal with a 20 percent royalty rate and a million-dollar advance. (No bidding-war band ever got a 20 percent royalty, but whatever.) This is my "funny" math based on some reality and I just want to qualify it by saying I'm positive it's better math than what Edgar Bronfman Jr. [the president and CEO of Seagram, which owns Polygram] would provide.
What happens to that million dollars?
They spend half a million to record their album. That leaves the band with $500,000. They pay $100,000 to their manager for 20 percent commission. They pay $25,000 each to their lawyer and business manager.
That leaves $350,000 for the four band members to split. After $170,000 in taxes, there's $180,000 left. That comes out to $45,000 per person.
That's $45,000 to live on for a year until the record gets released.
The record is a big hit and sells a million copies. (How a bidding-war band sells a million copies of its debut record is another rant entirely, but it's based on any basic civics-class knowledge that any of us have about cartels. Put simply, the antitrust laws in this country are basically a joke, protecting us just enough to not have to re-name our park service the Phillip Morris National Park Service.)
So, this band releases two singles and makes two videos. The two videos cost a million dollars to make and 50 percent of the video production costs are recouped out of the band's royalties.
The band gets $200,000 in tour support, which is 100 percent recoupable.
The record company spends $300,000 on independent radio promotion. You have to pay independent promotion to get your song on the radio; independent promotion is a system where the record companies use middlemen so they can pretend not to know that radio stations -- the unified broadcast system -- are getting paid to play their records.
All of those independent promotion costs are charged to the band.
Since the original million-dollar advance is also recoupable, the band owes $2 million to the record company.
If all of the million records are sold at full price with no discounts or record clubs, the band earns $2 million in royalties, since their 20 percent royalty works out to $2 a record.
Two million dollars in royalties minus $2 million in recoupable expenses equals ... zero!
How much does the record company make?
They grossed $11 million... -->
It costs $500,000 to manufacture the CDs and they advanced the band $1 million. Plus there were $1 million in video costs, $300,000 in radio promotion and $200,000 in tour support.
The company also paid $750,000 in music publishing royalties.
They spent $2.2 million on marketing. That's mostly retail advertising, but marketing also pays for those huge posters of Marilyn Manson in Times Square and the street scouts who drive around in vans handing out black Korn T-shirts and backwards baseball caps. Not to mention trips to Scores and cash for tips for all and sundry.
Add it up and the record company has spent about $4.4 million.
So their profit is $6.6 million; the band may as well be working at a 7-Eleven.
Of course, they had fun. Hearing yourself on the radio, selling records, getting new fans and being on TV is great, but now the band doesn't have enough money to pay the rent and nobody has any credit.
Worst of all, after all this, the band owns none of its work ... they can pay the mortgage forever but they'll never own the house. Like I said: Sharecropping. Our media says, "Boo hoo, poor pop stars, they had a nice ride. Fuck them for speaking up"; but I say this dialogue is imperative. And cynical media people, who are more fascinated with celebrity than most celebrities, need to reacquaint themselves with their value systems.
When you look at the legal line on a CD, it says copyright 1976 Atlantic Records or copyright 1996 RCA Records. When you look at a book, though, it'll say something like copyright 1999 Susan Faludi, or David Foster Wallace. Authors own their books and license them to publishers. When the contract runs out, writers gets their books back. But record companies own our copyrights forever.
The system's set up so almost nobody gets paid.
Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA)
Last November, a Congressional aide named Mitch Glazier, with the support of the RIAA, added a "technical amendment" to a bill that defined recorded music as "works for hire" under the 1978 Copyright Act.
He did this after all the hearings on the bill were over. By the time artists found out about the change, it was too late. The bill was on its way to the White House for the president's signature.
That subtle change in copyright law will add billions of dollars to record company bank accounts over the next few years -- billions of dollars that rightfully should have been paid to artists. A "work for hire" is now owned in perpetuity by the record company.
Under the 1978 Copyright Act, artists could reclaim the copyrights on their work after 35 years. If you wrote and recorded "Everybody Hurts," you at least got it back to as a family legacy after 35 years. But now, because of this corrupt little pisher, "Everybody Hurts" never gets returned to your family, and can now be sold to the highest bidder... -->
Over the years record companies have tried to put "work for hire" provisions in their contracts, and Mr. Glazier claims that the "work for hire" only "codified" a standard industry practice. But copyright laws didn't identify sound recordings as being eligible to be called "works for hire," so those contracts didn't mean anything. Until now.
Writing and recording "Hey Jude" is now the same thing as writing an English textbook, writing standardized tests, translating a novel from one language to another or making a map. These are the types of things addressed in the "work for hire" act. And writing a standardized test is a work for hire. Not making a record.
So an assistant substantially altered a major law when he only had the authority to make spelling corrections. That's not what I learned about how government works in my high school civics class.
Three months later, the RIAA hired Mr. Glazier to become its top lobbyist at a salary that was obviously much greater than the one he had as the spelling corrector guy.
The RIAA tries to argue that this change was necessary because of a provision in the bill that musicians supported. That provision prevents anyone from registering a famous person's name as a Web address without that person's permission. That's great. I own my name, and should be able to do what I want with my name.
But the bill also created an exception that allows a company to take a person's name for a Web address if they create a work for hire. Which means a record company would be allowed to own your Web site when you record your "work for hire" album. Like I said: Sharecropping.
Although I've never met any one at a record company who "believed in the Internet," they've all been trying to cover their asses by securing everyone's digital rights. Not that they know what to do with them. Go to a major label-owned band site. Give me a dollar for every time you see an annoying "under construction" sign. I used to pester Geffen (when it was a label) to do a better job. I was totally ignored for two years, until I got my band name back. The Goo Goo Dolls are struggling to gain control of their domain name from Warner Bros., who claim they own the name because they set up a shitty promotional Web site for the band.
Orrin Hatch, songwriter and Republican senator from Utah, seems to be the only person in Washington with a progressive view of copyright law. One lobbyist says that there's no one in the House with a similar view and that "this would have never happened if Sonny Bono was still alive."
By the way, which bill do you think the recording industry used for this amendment?
The Record Company Redefinition Act? No. The Music Copyright Act? No. The Work for Hire Authorship Act? No.
How about the Satellite Home Viewing Act of 1999?
Stealing our copyright reversions in the dead of night while no one was looking, and with no hearings held, is piracy.
It's piracy when the RIAA lobbies to change the bankruptcy law to make it more difficult for musicians to declare bankruptcy. Some musicians have declared bankruptcy to free themselves from truly evil contracts. TLC declared bankruptcy after they received less than 2 percent of the $175 million earned by their CD sales. That was about 40 times less than the profit that was divided among their management, production and record companies... -->
Toni Braxton also declared bankruptcy in 1998. She sold $188 million worth of CDs, but she was broke because of a terrible recording contract that paid her less than 35 cents per album. Bankruptcy can be an artist's only defense against a truly horrible deal and the RIAA wants to take it away.
Artists want to believe that we can make lots of money if we're successful. But there are hundreds of stories about artists in their 60s and 70s who are broke because they never made a dime from their hit records. And real success is still a long shot for a new artist today. Of the 32,000 new releases each year, only 250 sell more than 10,000 copies. And less than 30 go platinum.
The four major record corporations fund the RIAA. These companies are rich and obviously well-represented. Recording artists and musicians don't really have the money to compete. The 273,000 working musicians in America make about $30,000 a year. Only 15 percent of American Federation of Musicians members work steadily in music.
But the music industry is a $40 billion-a-year business. One-third of that revenue comes from the United States. The annual sales of cassettes, CDs and video are larger than the gross national product of 80 countries. Americans have more CD players, radios and VCRs than we have bathtubs.
Story after story gets told about artists -- some of them in their 60s and 70s, some of them authors of huge successful songs that we all enjoy, use and sing -- living in total poverty, never having been paid anything. Not even having access to a union or to basic health care. Artists who have generated billions of dollars for an industry die broke and un-cared for.
And they're not actors or participators. They're the rightful owners, originators and performers of original compositions.
This is piracy.
Technology is not piracy
This opinion is one I really haven't formed yet, so as I speak about Napster now, please understand that I'm not totally informed. I will be the first in line to file a class action suit to protect my copyrights if Napster or even the far more advanced Gnutella doesn't work with us to protect us. I'm on [Metallica drummer] Lars Ulrich's side, in other words, and I feel really badly for him that he doesn't know how to condense his case down to a sound-bite that sounds more reasonable than the one I saw today.
I also think Metallica is being given too much grief. It's anti-artist, for one thing. An artist speaks up and the artist gets squashed: Sharecropping. Don't get above your station, kid. It's not piracy when kids swap music over the Internet using Napster or Gnutella or Freenet or iMesh or beaming their CDs into a My.MP3.com or MyPlay.com music locker. It's piracy when those guys that run those companies make side deals with the cartel lawyers and label heads so that they can be "the labels' friend," and not the artists'.
Recording artists have essentially been giving their music away for free under the old system, so new technology that exposes our music to a larger audience can only be a good thing. Why aren't these companies working with us to create some peace?.. -->
There were a billion music downloads last year, but music sales are up. Where's the evidence that downloads hurt business? Downloads are creating more demand.
Why aren't record companies embracing this great opportunity? Why aren't they trying to talk to the kids passing compilations around to learn what they like? Why is the RIAA suing the companies that are stimulating this new demand? What's the point of going after people swapping cruddy-sounding MP3s? Cash! Cash they have no intention of passing onto us, the writers of their profits.
At this point the "record collector" geniuses who use Napster don't have the coolest most arcane selection anyway, unless you're into techno. Hardly any pre-1982 REM fans, no '60s punk, even the Alan Parsons Project was underrepresented when I tried to find some Napster buddies. For the most part, it was college boy rawk without a lot of imagination. Maybe that's the demographic that cares -- and in that case, My Bloody Valentine and Bert Jansch aren't going to get screwed just yet. There's still time to negotiate.
Destroying traditional access
Somewhere along the way, record companies figured out that it's a lot more profitable to control the distribution system than it is to nurture artists. And since the companies didn't have any real competition, artists had no other place to go. Record companies controlled the promotion and marketing; only they had the ability to get lots of radio play, and get records into all the big chain store. That power put them above both the artists and the audience. They own the plantation.
Being the gatekeeper was the most profitable place to be, but now we're in a world half without gates. The Internet allows artists to communicate directly with their audiences; we don't have to depend solely on an inefficient system where the record company promotes our records to radio, press or retail and then sits back and hopes fans find out about our music.
Record companies don't understand the intimacy between artists and their fans. They put records on the radio and buy some advertising and hope for the best. Digital distribution gives everyone worldwide, instant access to music.
And filters are replacing gatekeepers. In a world where we can get anything we want, whenever we want it, how does a company create value? By filtering. In a world without friction, the only friction people value is editing. A filter is valuable when it understands the needs of both artists and the public. New companies should be conduits between musicians and their fans... -->
Right now the only way you can get music is by shelling out $17. In a world where music costs a nickel, an artist can "sell" 100 million copies instead of just a million.
The present system keeps artists from finding an audience because it has too many artificial scarcities: limited radio promotion, limited bin space in stores and a limited number of spots on the record company roster.
The digital world has no scarcities. There are countless ways to reach an audience. Radio is no longer the only place to hear a new song. And tiny mall record stores aren't the only place to buy a new CD.
I'm leaving
Now artists have options. We don't have to work with major labels anymore, because the digital economy is creating new ways to distribute and market music. And the free ones amongst us aren't going to. That means the slave class, which I represent, has to find ways to get out of our deals. This didn't really matter before, and that's why we all stayed.
I want my seven-year contract law California labor code case to mean something to other artists. (Universal Records sues me because I leave because my employment is up, but they say a recording contract is not a personal contract; because the recording industry -- who, we have established, are excellent lobbyists, getting, as they did, a clerk to disallow Don Henley or Tom Petty the right to give their copyrights to their families -- in California, in 1987, lobbied to pass an amendment that nullified recording contracts as personal contracts, sort of. Maybe. Kind of. A little bit. And again, in the dead of night, succeeded.)
That's why I'm willing to do it with a sword in my teeth. I expect I'll be ignored or ostracized following this lawsuit. I expect that the treatment you're seeing Lars Ulrich get now will quadruple for me. Cool. At least I'll serve a purpose. I'm an artist and a good artist, I think, but I'm not that artist that has to play all the time, and thus has to get fucked. Maybe my laziness and self-destructive streak will finally pay off and serve a community desperately in need of it. They can't torture me like they could Lucinda Williams.
You funny dot-communists. Get your shit together, you annoying sucka VCs
I want to work with people who believe in music and art and passion. And I'm just the tip of the iceberg. I'm leaving the major label system and there are hundreds of artists who are going to follow me. There's an unbelievable opportunity for new companies that dare to get it right... -->
How can anyone defend the current system when it fails to deliver music to so many potential fans? That only expects of itself a "5 percent success rate" a year? The status quo gives us a boring culture. In a society of over 300 million people, only 30 new artists a year sell a million records. By any measure, that's a huge failure.
Maybe each fan will spend less money, but maybe each artist will have a better chance of making a living. Maybe our culture will get more interesting than the one currently owned by Time Warner. I'm not crazy. Ask yourself, are any of you somehow connected to Time Warner media? I think there are a lot of yeses to that and I'd have to say that in that case president McKinley truly failed to bust any trusts. Maybe we can remedy that now.
Artists will make that compromise if it means we can connect with hundreds of millions of fans instead of the hundreds of thousands that we have now. Especially if we lose all the crap that goes with success under the current system. I'm willing, right now, to leave half of these trappings -- fuck it, all these trappings -- at the door to have a pure artist experience. They cosset us with trappings to shut us up. That way when we say "sharecropper!" you can point to my free suit and say "Shut up pop star."
Here, take my Prada pants. Fuck it. Let us do our real jobs. And those of us addicted to celebrity because we have nothing else to give will fade away. And those of us addicted to celebrity because it was there will find a better, purer way to live.
Since I've basically been giving my music away for free under the old system, I'm not afraid of wireless, MP3 files or any of the other threats to my copyrights. Anything that makes my music more available to more people is great. MP3 files sound cruddy, but a well-made album sounds great. And I don't care what anyone says about digital recordings. At this point they are good for dance music, but try listening to a warm guitar tone on them. They suck for what I do.
Record companies are terrified of anything that challenges their control of distribution. This is the business that insisted that CDs be sold in incredibly wasteful 6-by-12 inch long boxes just because no one thought you could change the bins in a record store.
Let's not call the major labels "labels." Let's call them by their real names: They are the distributors. They're the only distributors and they exist because of scarcity. Artists pay 95 percent of whatever we make to gatekeepers because we used to need gatekeepers to get our music heard. Because they have a system, and when they decide to spend enough money -- all of it recoupable, all of it owed by me -- they can occasionally shove things through this system, depending on a lot of arbitrary factors.
The corporate filtering system, which is the system that brought you (in my humble opinion) a piece of crap like "Mambo No. 5" and didn't let you hear the brilliant Cat Power record or the amazing new Sleater Kinney record, obviously doesn't have good taste anyway. But we've never paid major label/distributors for their good taste. They've never been like Yahoo and provided a filter service.
There were a lot of factors that made a distributor decide to push a recording through the system:.. -->
How powerful is management?
Who owes whom a favor?
What independent promoter's cousin is the drummer?
What part of the fiscal year is the company putting out the record?
Is the royalty rate for the artist so obscenely bad that it's almost 100 percent profit instead of just 95 percent so that if the record sells, it's literally a steal?
How much bin space is left over this year?
Was the record already a hit in Europe so that there's corporate pressure to make it work?
Will the band screw up its live career to play free shows for radio stations?
Does the artist's song sound enough like someone else that radio stations will play it because it fits the sound of the month?
Did the artist get the song on a film soundtrack so that the movie studio will pay for the video?
These factors affect the decisions that go into the system. Not public taste. All these things are becoming eradicated now. They are gone or on their way out. We don't need the gatekeepers any more. We just don't need them.
And if they aren't going to do for me what I can do for myself with my 19-year-old Webmistress on my own Web site, then they need to get the hell out of my way. [I will] allow millions of people to get my music for nothing if they want and hopefully they'll be kind enough to leave a tip if they like it.
I still need the old stuff. I still need a producer in the creation of a recording, I still need to get on the radio (which costs a lot of money), I still need bin space for hardware CDs, I still need to provide an opportunity for people without computers to buy the hardware that I make. I still need a lot of this stuff, but I can get these things from a joint venture with a company that serves as a conduit and knows its place. Serving the artist and serving the public: That's its place.
Equity for artists
A new company that gives artists true equity in their work can take over the world, kick ass and make a lot of money. We're inspired by how people get paid in the new economy. Many visual artists and software and hardware designers have real ownership of their work.
I have a 14-year-old niece. She used to want to be a rock star. Before that she wanted to be an actress. As of six months ago, what do you think she wants to be when she grows up? What's the glamorous, emancipating career of choice? Of course, she wants to be a Web designer. It's such a glamorous business!
When you people do business with artists, you have to take a different view of things. We want to be treated with the respect that now goes to Web designers. We're not Dockers-wearing Intel workers from Portland who know how to "manage our stress." We don't understand or want to understand corporate culture.
I feel this obscene gold rush greedgreedgreed vibe that bothers me a lot when I talk to dot-com people about all this. You guys can't hustle artists that well. At least slick A&R guys know the buzzwords. Don't try to compete with them. I just laugh at you when you do! Maybe you could a year ago when anything dot-com sounded smarter than the rest of us, but the scam has been uncovered.
The celebrity-for-sale business is about to crash, I hope, and the idea of a sucker VC gifting some company with four floors just because they can "do" "chats" with "Christina" once or twice is ridiculous. I did a chat today, twice. Big damn deal. 200 bucks for the software and some elbow grease and a good back-end coder. Wow. That's not worth 150 million bucks.
... I mean, yeah, sure it is if you'd like to give it to me.
Tipping/music as service
I know my place. I'm a waiter. I'm in the service industry.
I live on tips. Occasionally, I'm going to get stiffed, but that's OK. If I work hard and I'm doing good work, I believe that the people who enjoy it are going to want to come directly to me and get my music because it sounds better, since it's mastered and packaged by me personally. I'm providing an honest, real experience. Period.
When people buy the bootleg T-shirt in the concert parking lot and not the more expensive T-shirt inside the venue, it isn't to save money. The T-shirt in the parking lot is cheap and badly made, but it's easier to buy. The bootleggers have a better distribution system. There's no waiting in line and it only takes two minutes to buy one.
I know that if I can provide my own T-shirt that I designed, that I made, and provide it as quickly or quicker than the bootleggers, people who've enjoyed the experience I've provided will be happy to shell out a little more money to cover my costs. Especially if they understand this context, and aren't being shoveled a load of shit about "uppity" artists.
It's exactly the same with recorded music. The real thing to fear from Napster is its simple and excellent distribution system. No one really prefers a cruddy-sounding Napster MP3 file to the real thing. But it's really easy to get an MP3 file; and in the middle of Kansas you may never see my record because major distribution is really bad if your record's not in the charts this week, and even then it takes a couple of weeks to restock the one copy they usually keep on hand... -->
I also know how many times I have heard a song on the radio that I loved only to buy the record and have the album be a piece of crap. If you're afraid of your own filler then I bet you're afraid of Napster. I'm afraid of Napster because I think the major label cartel will get to them before I do.
I've made three records. I like them all. I haven't made filler and they're all committed pieces of work. I'm not scared of you previewing my record. If you like it enough to have it be a part of your life, I know you'll come to me to get it, as long as I show you how to get to me, and as long as you know that it's out.
Most people don't go into restaurants and stiff waiters, but record labels represent the restaurant that forces the waiters to live on, and sometimes pool, their tips. And they even fight for a bit of their tips.
Music is a service to its consumers, not a product. I live on tips. Giving music away for free is what artists have been doing naturally all their lives.
New models
Record companies stand between artists and their fans. We signed terrible deals with them because they controlled our access to the public.
But in a world of total connectivity, record companies lose that control. With unlimited bin space and intelligent search engines, fans will have no trouble finding the music they know they want. They have to know they want it, and that needs to be a marketing business that takes a fee.
If a record company has a reason to exist, it has to bring an artist's music to more fans and it has to deliver more and better music to the audience. You bring me a bigger audience or a better relationship with my audience or get the fuck out of my way. Next time I release a record, I'll be able to go directly to my fans and let them hear it before anyone else.
We'll still have to use radio and traditional CD distribution. Record stores aren't going away any time soon and radio is still the most important part of record promotion.
Major labels are freaking out because they have no control in this new world. Artists can sell CDs directly to fans. We can make direct deals with thousands of other Web sites and promote our music to millions of people that old record companies never touch.
We're about to have lots of new ways to sell our music: downloads, hardware bundles, memory sticks, live Webcasts, and lots of other things that aren't even invented yet.
Content providers
But there's something you guys have to figure out.
Here's my open letter to Steve Case:
Avatars don't talk back!!! But what are you going to do with real live artists?
Artists aren't like you. We go through a creative process that's demented and crazy. There's a lot of soul-searching and turning ourselves inside-out and all kinds of gross stuff that ends up on "Behind the Music."
A lot of people who haven't been around artists very much get really weird when they sit down to lunch with us. So I want to give you some advice: Learn to speak our language. Talk about songs and melody and hooks and art and beauty and soul. Not sleazy record-guy crap, where you're in a cashmere sweater murmuring that the perfect deal really is perfect, Courtney. Yuck. Honestly hire honestly committed people. We're in a "new economy," right? You can afford to do that.
But don't talk to me about "content.".. -->
I get really freaked out when I meet someone and they start telling me that I should record 34 songs in the next six months so that we have enough content for my site. Defining artistic expression as content is anathema to me.
What the hell is content? Nobody buys content. Real people pay money for music because it means something to them. A great song is not just something to take up space on a Web site next to stock market quotes and baseball scores.
DEN tried to build a site with artist-free content and I'm not sorry to see it fail. The DEN shows look like art if you're not paying attention, but they forgot to hire anyone to be creative. So they ended up with a lot of content nobody wants to see because they thought they could avoid dealing with defiant and moody personalities. Because they were arrogant. And because they were conformists. Artists have to deal with business people and business people have to deal with artists. We hate each other. Let's create companies of mediators.
Every single artist who makes records believes and hopes that they give you something that will transform your life. If you're really just interested in data mining or selling banner ads, stick with those "artists" willing to call themselves content providers.
I don't know if an artist can last by meeting the current public taste, the taste from the last quarterly report. I don't think you can last by following demographics and carefully meeting expectations. I don't know many lasting works of art that are condescending or deliberately stupid or were created as content.
Don't tell me I'm a brand. I'm famous and people recognize me, but I can't look in the mirror and see my brand identity.
Keep talking about brands and you know what you'll get? Bad clothes. Bad hair. Bad books. Bad movies. And bad records. And bankrupt businesses. Rides that were fun for a year with no employee loyalty but everyone got rich fucking you. Who wants that? The answer is purity. We can afford it. Let's go find it again while we can.
I also feel filthy trying to call my music a product. It's not a thing that I test market like toothpaste or a new car. Music is personal and mysterious.
Being a "content provider" is prostitution work that devalues our art and doesn't satisfy our spirits. Artistic expression has to be provocative. The problem with artists and the Internet: Once their art is reduced to content, they may never have the opportunity to retrieve their souls.
When you form your business for creative people, with creative people, come at us with some thought. Everybody's process is different. And remember that it's art. We're not craftspeople.
Sponsorships
I don't know what a good sponsorship would be for me or for other artists I respect. People bring up sponsorships a lot as a way for artists to get our music paid for upfront and for us to earn a fee. I've dealt with large corporations for long enough to know that any alliance where I'm an owned service is going to be doomed.
When I agreed to allow a large cola company to promote a live show, I couldn't have been more miserable. They screwed up every single thing imaginable. The venue was empty but sold out. There were thousands of people outside who wanted to be there, trying to get tickets. And there were the empty seats the company had purchased for a lump sum and failed to market because they were clueless about music.
It was really dumb. You had to buy the cola. You had to dial a number. You had to press a bunch of buttons. You had to do all this crap that nobody wanted to do. Why not just bring a can to the door?
On top of all this, I felt embarrassed to be an advertising agent for a product that I'd never let my daughter use. Plus they were a condescending bunch of little guys. They treated me like I was an ungrateful little bitch who should be groveling for the experience to play for their damn soda.
I ended up playing without my shirt on and ordering a six-pack of the rival cola onstage. Also lots of unwholesome cursing and nudity occurred. This way I knew that no matter how tempting the cash was, they'd never do business with me again.
If you want some little obedient slave content provider, then fine. But I think most musicians don't want to be responsible for your clean-cut, wholesome, all-American, sugar corrosive cancer-causing, all white people, no women allowed sodapop images.
Nor, on the converse, do we want to be responsible for your vice-inducing, liver-rotting, child-labor-law-violating, all white people, no-women-allowed booze images.
So as a defiant moody artist worth my salt, I've got to think of something else. Tampax, maybe... -->
Money
As a user, I love Napster. It carries some risk. I hear idealistic business people talk about how people that are musicians would be musicians no matter what and that we're already doing it for free, so what about copyright?
Please. It's incredibly easy not to be a musician. It's always a struggle and a dangerous career choice. We are motivated by passion and by money.
That's not a dirty little secret. It's a fact. Take away the incentive for major or minor financial reward and you dilute the pool of musicians. I am not saying that only pure artists will survive. Like a few of the more utopian people who discuss this, I don't want just pure artists to survive.
Where would we all be without the trash? We need the trash to cover up our national depression. The utopians also say that because in their minds "pure" artists are all Ani DiFranco and don't demand a lot of money. Why are the utopians all entertainment lawyers and major label workers anyway? I demand a lot of money if I do a big huge worthwhile job and millions of people like it, don't kid yourself. In economic terms, you've got an industry that's loathsome and outmoded, but when it works it creates some incentive and some efficiency even though absolutely no one gets paid.
We suffer as a society and a culture when we don't pay the true value of goods and services delivered. We create a lack of production. Less good music is recorded if we remove the incentive to create it.
Music is intellectual property with full cash and opportunity costs required to create, polish and record a finished product. If I invest money and time into my business, I should be reasonably protected from the theft of my goods and services. When the judgment came against MP3.com, the RIAA sought damages of $150,000 for each major-label-"owned" musical track in MP3's database. Multiply by 80,000 CDs, and MP3.com could owe the gatekeepers $120 billion.
But what about the Plimsouls? Why can't MP3.com pay each artist a fixed amount based on the number of their downloads? Why on earth should MP3.com pay $120 billion to four distribution companies, who in most cases won't have to pay a nickel to the artists whose copyrights they've stolen through their system of organized theft?
It's a ridiculous judgment. I believe if evidence had been entered that ultimately it's just shuffling big cash around two or three corporations, I can only pray that the judge in the MP3.com case would have seen the RIAA's case for the joke that it was.
I'd rather work out a deal with MP3.com myself, and force them to be artist-friendly, instead of being laughed at and having my money hidden by a major label as they sell my records out the back door, behind everyone's back.
How dare they behave in such a horrified manner in regards to copyright law when their entire industry is based on piracy? When Mister Label Head Guy, whom my lawyer yelled at me not to name, got caught last year selling millions of "cleans" out the back door. "Cleans" being the records that aren't for marketing but are to be sold. Who the fuck is this guy? He wants to save a little cash so he fucks the artist and goes home? Do they fire him? Does Chuck Phillips of the LA Times say anything? No way! This guy's a source! He throws awesome dinner parties! Why fuck with the status quo? Let's pick on Lars Ulrich instead because he brought up an interesting point!
Conclusion .. -->
I'm looking for people to help connect me to more fans, because I believe fans will leave a tip based on the enjoyment and service I provide. I'm not scared of them getting a preview. It really is going to be a global village where a billion people have access to one artist and a billion people can leave a tip if they want to.
It's a radical democratization. Every artist has access to every fan and every fan has access to every artist, and the people who direct fans to those artists. People that give advice and technical value are the people we need. People crowding the distribution pipe and trying to ignore fans and artists have no value. This is a perfect system.
If you're going to start a company that deals with musicians, please do it because you like music. Offer some control and equity to the artists and try to give us some creative guidance. If music and art and passion are important to you, there are hundreds of artists who are ready to rewrite the rules.
In the last few years, business pulled our culture away from the idea that music is important and emotional and sacred. But new technology has brought a real opportunity for change; we can break down the old system and give musicians real freedom and choice.
A great writer named Neal Stephenson said that America does four things better than any other country in the world: rock music, movies, software and high-speed pizza delivery. All of these are sacred American art forms. Let's return to our purity and our idealism while we have this shot.
Warren Beatty once said: "The greatest gift God gives us is to enjoy the sound of our own voice. And the second greatest gift is to get somebody to listen to it."
And for that, I humbly thank you.
who wrote that???
i came across this while researching a net label recently and thought it was worth sharing. not only do i like the label (magnatune) and what they stand for, but i also liked this article. the thing i was not prepared for was to learn courtney love wrote this, but i must admit i have some newly found respect for her. i think her point is valid regardless of genre. it is also along the lines of what i usually write about, so without further ado...
Courtney Love does the math
The controversial singer takes on record label profits, Napster and "sucka VCs."
By Courtney Love
June 14, 2000
Today I want to talk about piracy and music. What is piracy? Piracy is the act of stealing an artist's work without any intention of paying for it. I'm not talking about Napster-type software.
I'm talking about major label recording contracts.
I want to start with a story about rock bands and record companies, and do some recording-contract math:
This story is about a bidding-war band that gets a huge deal with a 20 percent royalty rate and a million-dollar advance. (No bidding-war band ever got a 20 percent royalty, but whatever.) This is my "funny" math based on some reality and I just want to qualify it by saying I'm positive it's better math than what Edgar Bronfman Jr. [the president and CEO of Seagram, which owns Polygram] would provide.
What happens to that million dollars?
They spend half a million to record their album. That leaves the band with $500,000. They pay $100,000 to their manager for 20 percent commission. They pay $25,000 each to their lawyer and business manager.
That leaves $350,000 for the four band members to split. After $170,000 in taxes, there's $180,000 left. That comes out to $45,000 per person.
That's $45,000 to live on for a year until the record gets released.
The record is a big hit and sells a million copies. (How a bidding-war band sells a million copies of its debut record is another rant entirely, but it's based on any basic civics-class knowledge that any of us have about cartels. Put simply, the antitrust laws in this country are basically a joke, protecting us just enough to not have to re-name our park service the Phillip Morris National Park Service.)
So, this band releases two singles and makes two videos. The two videos cost a million dollars to make and 50 percent of the video production costs are recouped out of the band's royalties.
The band gets $200,000 in tour support, which is 100 percent recoupable.
The record company spends $300,000 on independent radio promotion. You have to pay independent promotion to get your song on the radio; independent promotion is a system where the record companies use middlemen so they can pretend not to know that radio stations -- the unified broadcast system -- are getting paid to play their records.
All of those independent promotion costs are charged to the band.
Since the original million-dollar advance is also recoupable, the band owes $2 million to the record company.
If all of the million records are sold at full price with no discounts or record clubs, the band earns $2 million in royalties, since their 20 percent royalty works out to $2 a record.
Two million dollars in royalties minus $2 million in recoupable expenses equals ... zero!
How much does the record company make?
They grossed $11 million... -->
It costs $500,000 to manufacture the CDs and they advanced the band $1 million. Plus there were $1 million in video costs, $300,000 in radio promotion and $200,000 in tour support.
The company also paid $750,000 in music publishing royalties.
They spent $2.2 million on marketing. That's mostly retail advertising, but marketing also pays for those huge posters of Marilyn Manson in Times Square and the street scouts who drive around in vans handing out black Korn T-shirts and backwards baseball caps. Not to mention trips to Scores and cash for tips for all and sundry.
Add it up and the record company has spent about $4.4 million.
So their profit is $6.6 million; the band may as well be working at a 7-Eleven.
Of course, they had fun. Hearing yourself on the radio, selling records, getting new fans and being on TV is great, but now the band doesn't have enough money to pay the rent and nobody has any credit.
Worst of all, after all this, the band owns none of its work ... they can pay the mortgage forever but they'll never own the house. Like I said: Sharecropping. Our media says, "Boo hoo, poor pop stars, they had a nice ride. Fuck them for speaking up"; but I say this dialogue is imperative. And cynical media people, who are more fascinated with celebrity than most celebrities, need to reacquaint themselves with their value systems.
When you look at the legal line on a CD, it says copyright 1976 Atlantic Records or copyright 1996 RCA Records. When you look at a book, though, it'll say something like copyright 1999 Susan Faludi, or David Foster Wallace. Authors own their books and license them to publishers. When the contract runs out, writers gets their books back. But record companies own our copyrights forever.
The system's set up so almost nobody gets paid.
Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA)
Last November, a Congressional aide named Mitch Glazier, with the support of the RIAA, added a "technical amendment" to a bill that defined recorded music as "works for hire" under the 1978 Copyright Act.
He did this after all the hearings on the bill were over. By the time artists found out about the change, it was too late. The bill was on its way to the White House for the president's signature.
That subtle change in copyright law will add billions of dollars to record company bank accounts over the next few years -- billions of dollars that rightfully should have been paid to artists. A "work for hire" is now owned in perpetuity by the record company.
Under the 1978 Copyright Act, artists could reclaim the copyrights on their work after 35 years. If you wrote and recorded "Everybody Hurts," you at least got it back to as a family legacy after 35 years. But now, because of this corrupt little pisher, "Everybody Hurts" never gets returned to your family, and can now be sold to the highest bidder... -->
Over the years record companies have tried to put "work for hire" provisions in their contracts, and Mr. Glazier claims that the "work for hire" only "codified" a standard industry practice. But copyright laws didn't identify sound recordings as being eligible to be called "works for hire," so those contracts didn't mean anything. Until now.
Writing and recording "Hey Jude" is now the same thing as writing an English textbook, writing standardized tests, translating a novel from one language to another or making a map. These are the types of things addressed in the "work for hire" act. And writing a standardized test is a work for hire. Not making a record.
So an assistant substantially altered a major law when he only had the authority to make spelling corrections. That's not what I learned about how government works in my high school civics class.
Three months later, the RIAA hired Mr. Glazier to become its top lobbyist at a salary that was obviously much greater than the one he had as the spelling corrector guy.
The RIAA tries to argue that this change was necessary because of a provision in the bill that musicians supported. That provision prevents anyone from registering a famous person's name as a Web address without that person's permission. That's great. I own my name, and should be able to do what I want with my name.
But the bill also created an exception that allows a company to take a person's name for a Web address if they create a work for hire. Which means a record company would be allowed to own your Web site when you record your "work for hire" album. Like I said: Sharecropping.
Although I've never met any one at a record company who "believed in the Internet," they've all been trying to cover their asses by securing everyone's digital rights. Not that they know what to do with them. Go to a major label-owned band site. Give me a dollar for every time you see an annoying "under construction" sign. I used to pester Geffen (when it was a label) to do a better job. I was totally ignored for two years, until I got my band name back. The Goo Goo Dolls are struggling to gain control of their domain name from Warner Bros., who claim they own the name because they set up a shitty promotional Web site for the band.
Orrin Hatch, songwriter and Republican senator from Utah, seems to be the only person in Washington with a progressive view of copyright law. One lobbyist says that there's no one in the House with a similar view and that "this would have never happened if Sonny Bono was still alive."
By the way, which bill do you think the recording industry used for this amendment?
The Record Company Redefinition Act? No. The Music Copyright Act? No. The Work for Hire Authorship Act? No.
How about the Satellite Home Viewing Act of 1999?
Stealing our copyright reversions in the dead of night while no one was looking, and with no hearings held, is piracy.
It's piracy when the RIAA lobbies to change the bankruptcy law to make it more difficult for musicians to declare bankruptcy. Some musicians have declared bankruptcy to free themselves from truly evil contracts. TLC declared bankruptcy after they received less than 2 percent of the $175 million earned by their CD sales. That was about 40 times less than the profit that was divided among their management, production and record companies... -->
Toni Braxton also declared bankruptcy in 1998. She sold $188 million worth of CDs, but she was broke because of a terrible recording contract that paid her less than 35 cents per album. Bankruptcy can be an artist's only defense against a truly horrible deal and the RIAA wants to take it away.
Artists want to believe that we can make lots of money if we're successful. But there are hundreds of stories about artists in their 60s and 70s who are broke because they never made a dime from their hit records. And real success is still a long shot for a new artist today. Of the 32,000 new releases each year, only 250 sell more than 10,000 copies. And less than 30 go platinum.
The four major record corporations fund the RIAA. These companies are rich and obviously well-represented. Recording artists and musicians don't really have the money to compete. The 273,000 working musicians in America make about $30,000 a year. Only 15 percent of American Federation of Musicians members work steadily in music.
But the music industry is a $40 billion-a-year business. One-third of that revenue comes from the United States. The annual sales of cassettes, CDs and video are larger than the gross national product of 80 countries. Americans have more CD players, radios and VCRs than we have bathtubs.
Story after story gets told about artists -- some of them in their 60s and 70s, some of them authors of huge successful songs that we all enjoy, use and sing -- living in total poverty, never having been paid anything. Not even having access to a union or to basic health care. Artists who have generated billions of dollars for an industry die broke and un-cared for.
And they're not actors or participators. They're the rightful owners, originators and performers of original compositions.
This is piracy.
Technology is not piracy
This opinion is one I really haven't formed yet, so as I speak about Napster now, please understand that I'm not totally informed. I will be the first in line to file a class action suit to protect my copyrights if Napster or even the far more advanced Gnutella doesn't work with us to protect us. I'm on [Metallica drummer] Lars Ulrich's side, in other words, and I feel really badly for him that he doesn't know how to condense his case down to a sound-bite that sounds more reasonable than the one I saw today.
I also think Metallica is being given too much grief. It's anti-artist, for one thing. An artist speaks up and the artist gets squashed: Sharecropping. Don't get above your station, kid. It's not piracy when kids swap music over the Internet using Napster or Gnutella or Freenet or iMesh or beaming their CDs into a My.MP3.com or MyPlay.com music locker. It's piracy when those guys that run those companies make side deals with the cartel lawyers and label heads so that they can be "the labels' friend," and not the artists'.
Recording artists have essentially been giving their music away for free under the old system, so new technology that exposes our music to a larger audience can only be a good thing. Why aren't these companies working with us to create some peace?.. -->
There were a billion music downloads last year, but music sales are up. Where's the evidence that downloads hurt business? Downloads are creating more demand.
Why aren't record companies embracing this great opportunity? Why aren't they trying to talk to the kids passing compilations around to learn what they like? Why is the RIAA suing the companies that are stimulating this new demand? What's the point of going after people swapping cruddy-sounding MP3s? Cash! Cash they have no intention of passing onto us, the writers of their profits.
At this point the "record collector" geniuses who use Napster don't have the coolest most arcane selection anyway, unless you're into techno. Hardly any pre-1982 REM fans, no '60s punk, even the Alan Parsons Project was underrepresented when I tried to find some Napster buddies. For the most part, it was college boy rawk without a lot of imagination. Maybe that's the demographic that cares -- and in that case, My Bloody Valentine and Bert Jansch aren't going to get screwed just yet. There's still time to negotiate.
Destroying traditional access
Somewhere along the way, record companies figured out that it's a lot more profitable to control the distribution system than it is to nurture artists. And since the companies didn't have any real competition, artists had no other place to go. Record companies controlled the promotion and marketing; only they had the ability to get lots of radio play, and get records into all the big chain store. That power put them above both the artists and the audience. They own the plantation.
Being the gatekeeper was the most profitable place to be, but now we're in a world half without gates. The Internet allows artists to communicate directly with their audiences; we don't have to depend solely on an inefficient system where the record company promotes our records to radio, press or retail and then sits back and hopes fans find out about our music.
Record companies don't understand the intimacy between artists and their fans. They put records on the radio and buy some advertising and hope for the best. Digital distribution gives everyone worldwide, instant access to music.
And filters are replacing gatekeepers. In a world where we can get anything we want, whenever we want it, how does a company create value? By filtering. In a world without friction, the only friction people value is editing. A filter is valuable when it understands the needs of both artists and the public. New companies should be conduits between musicians and their fans... -->
Right now the only way you can get music is by shelling out $17. In a world where music costs a nickel, an artist can "sell" 100 million copies instead of just a million.
The present system keeps artists from finding an audience because it has too many artificial scarcities: limited radio promotion, limited bin space in stores and a limited number of spots on the record company roster.
The digital world has no scarcities. There are countless ways to reach an audience. Radio is no longer the only place to hear a new song. And tiny mall record stores aren't the only place to buy a new CD.
I'm leaving
Now artists have options. We don't have to work with major labels anymore, because the digital economy is creating new ways to distribute and market music. And the free ones amongst us aren't going to. That means the slave class, which I represent, has to find ways to get out of our deals. This didn't really matter before, and that's why we all stayed.
I want my seven-year contract law California labor code case to mean something to other artists. (Universal Records sues me because I leave because my employment is up, but they say a recording contract is not a personal contract; because the recording industry -- who, we have established, are excellent lobbyists, getting, as they did, a clerk to disallow Don Henley or Tom Petty the right to give their copyrights to their families -- in California, in 1987, lobbied to pass an amendment that nullified recording contracts as personal contracts, sort of. Maybe. Kind of. A little bit. And again, in the dead of night, succeeded.)
That's why I'm willing to do it with a sword in my teeth. I expect I'll be ignored or ostracized following this lawsuit. I expect that the treatment you're seeing Lars Ulrich get now will quadruple for me. Cool. At least I'll serve a purpose. I'm an artist and a good artist, I think, but I'm not that artist that has to play all the time, and thus has to get fucked. Maybe my laziness and self-destructive streak will finally pay off and serve a community desperately in need of it. They can't torture me like they could Lucinda Williams.
You funny dot-communists. Get your shit together, you annoying sucka VCs
I want to work with people who believe in music and art and passion. And I'm just the tip of the iceberg. I'm leaving the major label system and there are hundreds of artists who are going to follow me. There's an unbelievable opportunity for new companies that dare to get it right... -->
How can anyone defend the current system when it fails to deliver music to so many potential fans? That only expects of itself a "5 percent success rate" a year? The status quo gives us a boring culture. In a society of over 300 million people, only 30 new artists a year sell a million records. By any measure, that's a huge failure.
Maybe each fan will spend less money, but maybe each artist will have a better chance of making a living. Maybe our culture will get more interesting than the one currently owned by Time Warner. I'm not crazy. Ask yourself, are any of you somehow connected to Time Warner media? I think there are a lot of yeses to that and I'd have to say that in that case president McKinley truly failed to bust any trusts. Maybe we can remedy that now.
Artists will make that compromise if it means we can connect with hundreds of millions of fans instead of the hundreds of thousands that we have now. Especially if we lose all the crap that goes with success under the current system. I'm willing, right now, to leave half of these trappings -- fuck it, all these trappings -- at the door to have a pure artist experience. They cosset us with trappings to shut us up. That way when we say "sharecropper!" you can point to my free suit and say "Shut up pop star."
Here, take my Prada pants. Fuck it. Let us do our real jobs. And those of us addicted to celebrity because we have nothing else to give will fade away. And those of us addicted to celebrity because it was there will find a better, purer way to live.
Since I've basically been giving my music away for free under the old system, I'm not afraid of wireless, MP3 files or any of the other threats to my copyrights. Anything that makes my music more available to more people is great. MP3 files sound cruddy, but a well-made album sounds great. And I don't care what anyone says about digital recordings. At this point they are good for dance music, but try listening to a warm guitar tone on them. They suck for what I do.
Record companies are terrified of anything that challenges their control of distribution. This is the business that insisted that CDs be sold in incredibly wasteful 6-by-12 inch long boxes just because no one thought you could change the bins in a record store.
Let's not call the major labels "labels." Let's call them by their real names: They are the distributors. They're the only distributors and they exist because of scarcity. Artists pay 95 percent of whatever we make to gatekeepers because we used to need gatekeepers to get our music heard. Because they have a system, and when they decide to spend enough money -- all of it recoupable, all of it owed by me -- they can occasionally shove things through this system, depending on a lot of arbitrary factors.
The corporate filtering system, which is the system that brought you (in my humble opinion) a piece of crap like "Mambo No. 5" and didn't let you hear the brilliant Cat Power record or the amazing new Sleater Kinney record, obviously doesn't have good taste anyway. But we've never paid major label/distributors for their good taste. They've never been like Yahoo and provided a filter service.
There were a lot of factors that made a distributor decide to push a recording through the system:.. -->
How powerful is management?
Who owes whom a favor?
What independent promoter's cousin is the drummer?
What part of the fiscal year is the company putting out the record?
Is the royalty rate for the artist so obscenely bad that it's almost 100 percent profit instead of just 95 percent so that if the record sells, it's literally a steal?
How much bin space is left over this year?
Was the record already a hit in Europe so that there's corporate pressure to make it work?
Will the band screw up its live career to play free shows for radio stations?
Does the artist's song sound enough like someone else that radio stations will play it because it fits the sound of the month?
Did the artist get the song on a film soundtrack so that the movie studio will pay for the video?
These factors affect the decisions that go into the system. Not public taste. All these things are becoming eradicated now. They are gone or on their way out. We don't need the gatekeepers any more. We just don't need them.
And if they aren't going to do for me what I can do for myself with my 19-year-old Webmistress on my own Web site, then they need to get the hell out of my way. [I will] allow millions of people to get my music for nothing if they want and hopefully they'll be kind enough to leave a tip if they like it.
I still need the old stuff. I still need a producer in the creation of a recording, I still need to get on the radio (which costs a lot of money), I still need bin space for hardware CDs, I still need to provide an opportunity for people without computers to buy the hardware that I make. I still need a lot of this stuff, but I can get these things from a joint venture with a company that serves as a conduit and knows its place. Serving the artist and serving the public: That's its place.
Equity for artists
A new company that gives artists true equity in their work can take over the world, kick ass and make a lot of money. We're inspired by how people get paid in the new economy. Many visual artists and software and hardware designers have real ownership of their work.
I have a 14-year-old niece. She used to want to be a rock star. Before that she wanted to be an actress. As of six months ago, what do you think she wants to be when she grows up? What's the glamorous, emancipating career of choice? Of course, she wants to be a Web designer. It's such a glamorous business!
When you people do business with artists, you have to take a different view of things. We want to be treated with the respect that now goes to Web designers. We're not Dockers-wearing Intel workers from Portland who know how to "manage our stress." We don't understand or want to understand corporate culture.
I feel this obscene gold rush greedgreedgreed vibe that bothers me a lot when I talk to dot-com people about all this. You guys can't hustle artists that well. At least slick A&R guys know the buzzwords. Don't try to compete with them. I just laugh at you when you do! Maybe you could a year ago when anything dot-com sounded smarter than the rest of us, but the scam has been uncovered.
The celebrity-for-sale business is about to crash, I hope, and the idea of a sucker VC gifting some company with four floors just because they can "do" "chats" with "Christina" once or twice is ridiculous. I did a chat today, twice. Big damn deal. 200 bucks for the software and some elbow grease and a good back-end coder. Wow. That's not worth 150 million bucks.
... I mean, yeah, sure it is if you'd like to give it to me.
Tipping/music as service
I know my place. I'm a waiter. I'm in the service industry.
I live on tips. Occasionally, I'm going to get stiffed, but that's OK. If I work hard and I'm doing good work, I believe that the people who enjoy it are going to want to come directly to me and get my music because it sounds better, since it's mastered and packaged by me personally. I'm providing an honest, real experience. Period.
When people buy the bootleg T-shirt in the concert parking lot and not the more expensive T-shirt inside the venue, it isn't to save money. The T-shirt in the parking lot is cheap and badly made, but it's easier to buy. The bootleggers have a better distribution system. There's no waiting in line and it only takes two minutes to buy one.
I know that if I can provide my own T-shirt that I designed, that I made, and provide it as quickly or quicker than the bootleggers, people who've enjoyed the experience I've provided will be happy to shell out a little more money to cover my costs. Especially if they understand this context, and aren't being shoveled a load of shit about "uppity" artists.
It's exactly the same with recorded music. The real thing to fear from Napster is its simple and excellent distribution system. No one really prefers a cruddy-sounding Napster MP3 file to the real thing. But it's really easy to get an MP3 file; and in the middle of Kansas you may never see my record because major distribution is really bad if your record's not in the charts this week, and even then it takes a couple of weeks to restock the one copy they usually keep on hand... -->
I also know how many times I have heard a song on the radio that I loved only to buy the record and have the album be a piece of crap. If you're afraid of your own filler then I bet you're afraid of Napster. I'm afraid of Napster because I think the major label cartel will get to them before I do.
I've made three records. I like them all. I haven't made filler and they're all committed pieces of work. I'm not scared of you previewing my record. If you like it enough to have it be a part of your life, I know you'll come to me to get it, as long as I show you how to get to me, and as long as you know that it's out.
Most people don't go into restaurants and stiff waiters, but record labels represent the restaurant that forces the waiters to live on, and sometimes pool, their tips. And they even fight for a bit of their tips.
Music is a service to its consumers, not a product. I live on tips. Giving music away for free is what artists have been doing naturally all their lives.
New models
Record companies stand between artists and their fans. We signed terrible deals with them because they controlled our access to the public.
But in a world of total connectivity, record companies lose that control. With unlimited bin space and intelligent search engines, fans will have no trouble finding the music they know they want. They have to know they want it, and that needs to be a marketing business that takes a fee.
If a record company has a reason to exist, it has to bring an artist's music to more fans and it has to deliver more and better music to the audience. You bring me a bigger audience or a better relationship with my audience or get the fuck out of my way. Next time I release a record, I'll be able to go directly to my fans and let them hear it before anyone else.
We'll still have to use radio and traditional CD distribution. Record stores aren't going away any time soon and radio is still the most important part of record promotion.
Major labels are freaking out because they have no control in this new world. Artists can sell CDs directly to fans. We can make direct deals with thousands of other Web sites and promote our music to millions of people that old record companies never touch.
We're about to have lots of new ways to sell our music: downloads, hardware bundles, memory sticks, live Webcasts, and lots of other things that aren't even invented yet.
Content providers
But there's something you guys have to figure out.
Here's my open letter to Steve Case:
Avatars don't talk back!!! But what are you going to do with real live artists?
Artists aren't like you. We go through a creative process that's demented and crazy. There's a lot of soul-searching and turning ourselves inside-out and all kinds of gross stuff that ends up on "Behind the Music."
A lot of people who haven't been around artists very much get really weird when they sit down to lunch with us. So I want to give you some advice: Learn to speak our language. Talk about songs and melody and hooks and art and beauty and soul. Not sleazy record-guy crap, where you're in a cashmere sweater murmuring that the perfect deal really is perfect, Courtney. Yuck. Honestly hire honestly committed people. We're in a "new economy," right? You can afford to do that.
But don't talk to me about "content.".. -->
I get really freaked out when I meet someone and they start telling me that I should record 34 songs in the next six months so that we have enough content for my site. Defining artistic expression as content is anathema to me.
What the hell is content? Nobody buys content. Real people pay money for music because it means something to them. A great song is not just something to take up space on a Web site next to stock market quotes and baseball scores.
DEN tried to build a site with artist-free content and I'm not sorry to see it fail. The DEN shows look like art if you're not paying attention, but they forgot to hire anyone to be creative. So they ended up with a lot of content nobody wants to see because they thought they could avoid dealing with defiant and moody personalities. Because they were arrogant. And because they were conformists. Artists have to deal with business people and business people have to deal with artists. We hate each other. Let's create companies of mediators.
Every single artist who makes records believes and hopes that they give you something that will transform your life. If you're really just interested in data mining or selling banner ads, stick with those "artists" willing to call themselves content providers.
I don't know if an artist can last by meeting the current public taste, the taste from the last quarterly report. I don't think you can last by following demographics and carefully meeting expectations. I don't know many lasting works of art that are condescending or deliberately stupid or were created as content.
Don't tell me I'm a brand. I'm famous and people recognize me, but I can't look in the mirror and see my brand identity.
Keep talking about brands and you know what you'll get? Bad clothes. Bad hair. Bad books. Bad movies. And bad records. And bankrupt businesses. Rides that were fun for a year with no employee loyalty but everyone got rich fucking you. Who wants that? The answer is purity. We can afford it. Let's go find it again while we can.
I also feel filthy trying to call my music a product. It's not a thing that I test market like toothpaste or a new car. Music is personal and mysterious.
Being a "content provider" is prostitution work that devalues our art and doesn't satisfy our spirits. Artistic expression has to be provocative. The problem with artists and the Internet: Once their art is reduced to content, they may never have the opportunity to retrieve their souls.
When you form your business for creative people, with creative people, come at us with some thought. Everybody's process is different. And remember that it's art. We're not craftspeople.
Sponsorships
I don't know what a good sponsorship would be for me or for other artists I respect. People bring up sponsorships a lot as a way for artists to get our music paid for upfront and for us to earn a fee. I've dealt with large corporations for long enough to know that any alliance where I'm an owned service is going to be doomed.
When I agreed to allow a large cola company to promote a live show, I couldn't have been more miserable. They screwed up every single thing imaginable. The venue was empty but sold out. There were thousands of people outside who wanted to be there, trying to get tickets. And there were the empty seats the company had purchased for a lump sum and failed to market because they were clueless about music.
It was really dumb. You had to buy the cola. You had to dial a number. You had to press a bunch of buttons. You had to do all this crap that nobody wanted to do. Why not just bring a can to the door?
On top of all this, I felt embarrassed to be an advertising agent for a product that I'd never let my daughter use. Plus they were a condescending bunch of little guys. They treated me like I was an ungrateful little bitch who should be groveling for the experience to play for their damn soda.
I ended up playing without my shirt on and ordering a six-pack of the rival cola onstage. Also lots of unwholesome cursing and nudity occurred. This way I knew that no matter how tempting the cash was, they'd never do business with me again.
If you want some little obedient slave content provider, then fine. But I think most musicians don't want to be responsible for your clean-cut, wholesome, all-American, sugar corrosive cancer-causing, all white people, no women allowed sodapop images.
Nor, on the converse, do we want to be responsible for your vice-inducing, liver-rotting, child-labor-law-violating, all white people, no-women-allowed booze images.
So as a defiant moody artist worth my salt, I've got to think of something else. Tampax, maybe... -->
Money
As a user, I love Napster. It carries some risk. I hear idealistic business people talk about how people that are musicians would be musicians no matter what and that we're already doing it for free, so what about copyright?
Please. It's incredibly easy not to be a musician. It's always a struggle and a dangerous career choice. We are motivated by passion and by money.
That's not a dirty little secret. It's a fact. Take away the incentive for major or minor financial reward and you dilute the pool of musicians. I am not saying that only pure artists will survive. Like a few of the more utopian people who discuss this, I don't want just pure artists to survive.
Where would we all be without the trash? We need the trash to cover up our national depression. The utopians also say that because in their minds "pure" artists are all Ani DiFranco and don't demand a lot of money. Why are the utopians all entertainment lawyers and major label workers anyway? I demand a lot of money if I do a big huge worthwhile job and millions of people like it, don't kid yourself. In economic terms, you've got an industry that's loathsome and outmoded, but when it works it creates some incentive and some efficiency even though absolutely no one gets paid.
We suffer as a society and a culture when we don't pay the true value of goods and services delivered. We create a lack of production. Less good music is recorded if we remove the incentive to create it.
Music is intellectual property with full cash and opportunity costs required to create, polish and record a finished product. If I invest money and time into my business, I should be reasonably protected from the theft of my goods and services. When the judgment came against MP3.com, the RIAA sought damages of $150,000 for each major-label-"owned" musical track in MP3's database. Multiply by 80,000 CDs, and MP3.com could owe the gatekeepers $120 billion.
But what about the Plimsouls? Why can't MP3.com pay each artist a fixed amount based on the number of their downloads? Why on earth should MP3.com pay $120 billion to four distribution companies, who in most cases won't have to pay a nickel to the artists whose copyrights they've stolen through their system of organized theft?
It's a ridiculous judgment. I believe if evidence had been entered that ultimately it's just shuffling big cash around two or three corporations, I can only pray that the judge in the MP3.com case would have seen the RIAA's case for the joke that it was.
I'd rather work out a deal with MP3.com myself, and force them to be artist-friendly, instead of being laughed at and having my money hidden by a major label as they sell my records out the back door, behind everyone's back.
How dare they behave in such a horrified manner in regards to copyright law when their entire industry is based on piracy? When Mister Label Head Guy, whom my lawyer yelled at me not to name, got caught last year selling millions of "cleans" out the back door. "Cleans" being the records that aren't for marketing but are to be sold. Who the fuck is this guy? He wants to save a little cash so he fucks the artist and goes home? Do they fire him? Does Chuck Phillips of the LA Times say anything? No way! This guy's a source! He throws awesome dinner parties! Why fuck with the status quo? Let's pick on Lars Ulrich instead because he brought up an interesting point!
Conclusion .. -->
I'm looking for people to help connect me to more fans, because I believe fans will leave a tip based on the enjoyment and service I provide. I'm not scared of them getting a preview. It really is going to be a global village where a billion people have access to one artist and a billion people can leave a tip if they want to.
It's a radical democratization. Every artist has access to every fan and every fan has access to every artist, and the people who direct fans to those artists. People that give advice and technical value are the people we need. People crowding the distribution pipe and trying to ignore fans and artists have no value. This is a perfect system.
If you're going to start a company that deals with musicians, please do it because you like music. Offer some control and equity to the artists and try to give us some creative guidance. If music and art and passion are important to you, there are hundreds of artists who are ready to rewrite the rules.
In the last few years, business pulled our culture away from the idea that music is important and emotional and sacred. But new technology has brought a real opportunity for change; we can break down the old system and give musicians real freedom and choice.
A great writer named Neal Stephenson said that America does four things better than any other country in the world: rock music, movies, software and high-speed pizza delivery. All of these are sacred American art forms. Let's return to our purity and our idealism while we have this shot.
Warren Beatty once said: "The greatest gift God gives us is to enjoy the sound of our own voice. And the second greatest gift is to get somebody to listen to it."
And for that, I humbly thank you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
