back-words... riaa, social response, and yet another rant...

*** after minimal- er, zero success with the previous blog i did some individual digging and compiled this entry...

Friday, April 28, 2006
riaa, social response, and yet another rant...
ok, i just recently asked several hundred people for their feedback regarding an aspect of the music industry that is getting control which i find questionable based on an experience i had this weekend with a prospective radio station. out of all the people i asked, i got feedback from only 5 people and most of the people did not actually respond to the questions i asked, but rather something else. i would like to share the entire experience and review it...

it began this last weekend when i asked to join a radio station. i received a reply a couple days later informing me of the stations rules and available slots for broadcast, which was great to know they wanted me to join except that i wasnt clear on one of the terms in particular: repository. i understand a repository is a central location or storage, but why would a radio station, particularly and internet radio station featuring djs and artists who play edm have a repository? clubs, raves, radio stations, and djs have always deliberately ignored the rules of copyright, specifically including no public performance. so why would rules controlling public performance suddenly be a concern? well, its more than just ascap and copyright control involved. apparently there is another company, the riaa, who is trying to control public performance of of music played through internet radio broadcasts. im sorry but this is just lame and there are more important issues in the world to be concerned with. the riaa is trying to dictate that you must either pay a per track, per play licensing fee or you must gain permission from the artist or label to play specific tracks. this means either one can disregard this rule and risk the legal consequences which include seizure of all assets, or go broke paying licensing fees and in turn, have to charge listeners to make up the difference, which most stations do not do and are not going to do. the riaa is also trying to make it illegal for listeners to record live online airplay, which means you can not record the essential mix, you cannot record the mutant dance party, nor can you record me or your best friend. nice, huh? yeah, i thought so, too...

so i implored with to the great sense of appeal to the stations owner and while i was doing this, i asked myself what i would do in such a situation and i asked three other stations i play for what their point of view and practice was... i also asked the edm community for their thoughts.

the two best replies i got were from the prospective radio station owner and a dj in the edm community. they were thoughtful and detailed. the rest i got were fairly self-explanatory, yet not what i was looking for at all... i will share my experiences here... names and such will be omitted for everyones happiness, including mine. :)



'hi there,
> > i saw the broadcast schedule was pretty empty, and
> i was wondering if you
> > were considering adding more djs? if so, i would
> be interested in taking a
> > slot on an empty night. i already broadcast, so i
> wouldnt need to have my
> > hand held through the process. :) thank you for
> your time.
> > -scott'

Hi Scott - sorry for the delay in responding but I
> was out of town and so
> it's been pretty hectic. Anyway, yes we most
> definitely are open to more
> DJs! We have lots of available time slots, not
> just evenings but daytime
> or latenite as well. So whatever time slot
> interests you let me know.
>
> We really only have a couple of rules:
>
> 1. We can *only* play music from our repository.
> Because we are zero
> revenue, we do not pay royalties to artists and
> instead ask them for
> explicit permission to give their music airplay. As
> a result, we can only
> play music we have permission. The repository has
> the list of all tracks we
> have permission for, so it's pretty easy to keep up
> with.
>
> 2. We are an ambient station, so we play only
> ambient music. Our definition
> of ambient is zero beats, hand perc/tribal beat
> ambient, or machine/human
> drums if they are *extremely* subtle. In general,
> drum machine or drum kit
> music doesn't match. Again, the repository should
> have only ambient music
> in it, so playing the repository covers you here
> too.
>
> 3. We do ask DJs to make a commitment to do their
> show regularly. If you
> can't make your regularly scheduled time, then we
> ask you get with the other
> DJs to find someone to cover for you.
>
> That's pretty much it. Everything else is details.
> Of course there is no
> compensation available for being a DJ - we're zero
> revenue so there's
> nothing available. We all do it for the love of the
> music.
>
> Anyway let me know if you're still interested! If
> so, let's talk about the
> next steps.
>
> Cheers!

how are you? thanks for getting back to me.
it was good chatting with you online, while it lasted.
;)

i understand you have rules and consequences you are
concerned with- i am too. as i said earlier, im not
trying to be argumentative, but rather seeking
understanding. i hope you also regard this discussion
as an exchange of ideas and light-hearted debate.

i also have issues. i dj not only to bring pleasurable
music to ppl, but also to share with them my own track
selection. after all, djs are often referred to as
jukeboxes. for me, it not just about mixing style and
good tracks, its also about the story i have created
to share. my story. i feel my artistic _expression is
compromised at the thought of having to choose tracks
from a collection that wasnt mine. all my personal
interests, time, and money go into my selections.
while it is fun to occasionally play records from
another dj's crate, i would not and could not
seriously mix with tracks that were not from my
collection. while your track selection is a bit larger
than mine, i do not own tracks by a lot of those
artists so i am unfamiliar with your music. this poses
problems of spending countless hours to become
fluently familiar with your music and also becoming
limited to your selection, which is only digital. i
really enjoy playing from my decks from time to time.
i would lose a lot of selection from my personal
collection following your rules. you do have
permissions from some of the artists i play, but there
are many other artists that i play that you do not
have permission from.

my point is not to argue with you, but rather to see
your point of view and for you to see mine.

virtually all music is copyrighted. most records say
copyright and detail restrictions such as no public
performance. that may be a law, but as a part of the
electronic dance movement, it has been our revolution
and resolution to publicly play these records
regardless, to share our musical passion with our
listeners, and to give a big middle finger to the
establishment (to some extent). public performance is
also how these artists get heard and gain popularity
whether they wish to admit it or not. this restraint
unfairly limits a dj's selection to what is acceptable
predetermined by a flagship corporation comprised of
labels and private businesses rather than by the
artists themselves. this isnt fair not only to the djs
but to the artists as well. i would also like to raise
a point that the riaa has not had a lot of success in
enforcing their pettiness, including their court loss
against the rio mp3 player. in fact the riaa has not
been known to enforce radio or internet radio
broadcasts as primarily most of their rules are only
proposals that have not been passed into laws. just
two days ago there are still articles referencing
their proposals, rather than regulations. i am not
comfortable with being controlled and/or limited,
especially by a rule that is not a law...

among all the styles i play, i thoroughly enjoy
ambient. it easily takes a third of my entire
collection. it is also about half of my production. as
i mentioned before i already play for 4 stations and
was considering playing ambient once weekly. i could
easily do that anywhere else, but i like your station
and the people in it as well as the artists featured.
i also like the fact that it is exclusively ambient
which reaches a very targeted audience... i would
still like to play for your station, but not under the
constraint for my creative freedom and artistic
_expression. i am sure that is still my constitutional
right, regardless of what the corporate giants may do
to us.

perhaps this gives us both something to chew on.
i would like to hear your thoughts, please.
thank you for your consideration! :)

-scott

Hey Scott - I understand completely. Unfortunately I've done quite a lot of research on the legalities of the net radio biz and paying royalties to SoundExchange as well as ASCAP/BMI and others isn't optional if I want to stay on the legal side of 'the line'. I appreciate your desire to give the RIAA the middle finger (I share the desire) but I refuse to put myself in a position where the RIAA could take away my house or my other assets. I am the sole proprietor of StillStream, not a corp, and so if they sue, they sue me personally. I take this very seriously, despite how much I loathe the RIAA.

I agree that corporate giants, as always, skew the rules to suit their needs. For the pure ambient industry, however, there really aren't too many big corps, just a lot of small companies and even more individuals. Most ambient artists are indies who release through many labels at a time, or are indies who have never released through any label. Most ambient labels are similar to my own label (Blue Water Records), which is to say they're one-person or two-person operations that operate on a shoestring.

Anyway given all this, I have chosen to respect the wishes of the ambient artists and labels as to whether they want me to give their stuff airplay. 99f artists and labels have said 'yes', but there are many who never responded, and a few who said 'no'. Even if I disagree with their reasons for saying no, I still feel strongly I should respect their decision. It is, after all, their music.

So anyway it comes down to the whole issue of copyright law. Many people feel copyrights are outdated and information should be shared freely. I agree with that so long as the author/artist *chooses* to share their stuff freely. It should be the artist's choice. As long as the artist who created the music retains the ability to choose whether or not to distribute freely, I'm happy. And to me, the fact that many artists 'sell out' to a major label/corp is irrelevant to this discussion, if for no other reason that there are no 'major labels' in the ambient world. ;-)

Anyway I respect your decision bro. Sounds like you should continue on the path you are on, and I'm glad you're doing it. I do advise you to be careful about your own liability. Like it or not, the law at present is on the big corps' side .....

Cheers



************ok, that was my correspondence with the prospective radio station. it was all very pleasant with no hard feelings, as we understand each other's point of view, though im sure we both regret we cannot work together... here's what i sent to the owners of the stations i currently play for:

i have recently encountered some debates regarding the riaa, permissions, and broadcasting... i just wanted to know your understanding of it, whether you were (going to be) licensed or enforce the stations djs to use a music repository, or continue to broadcast regardless of any limitations...

one station never replied. one station simply said "yes." another station essentially claimed no knowledge of this issue but that they were unlicensed, playing royalty-free music, that the license is paid for in the records played which are designed for broadcast anyway... (this is not my interpretation).



********************* this was, to say the least, frustrating. i felt these people either didnt know better or they didnt want to admit to the truth. its hard to say anything beyond speculation. now i continue with what i sent to my edm community:

i have recently encountered some debates regarding the
riaa, permissions, and broadcasting... i just wanted
to know everyones understanding of it and where they
stood on the issues posed by this uproar...

has the riaa massively swept through internet stations
and sued those who have sought license or permissions?

i hear a lot of what they are harping about is still
proposals and not law yet- is this true?
some net radio stations are employing a music
repository that contain permitted tracks and i was
wondering if this is likely to be the new practice....
as there are countless net stations will most stations
merely offer a middle finger to the establishment and
continue to cast regardless of what the riaa and
others say?

also doesnt this restriction compromise the freedom of
expression as djs are artists, too? if so, isnt that unconstitutional?

*reply #1-
The RIAA essentially owns the rights to the music you broadcast unless it is a truly independent track. You have to apply for a rebroadcast permission per track you wish to broadcast, and you will be paying royalties to use said track for EVERY time you use it!

This is why internet radio is having some issues, because the rebroadcast costs money.

Its a bitch, but its governed by the same laws as standard broadcast radio

*reply #2-

I think internet radio is set up the same way clubs are: the main
radio server (shoutcast, winamp, etc) pays ASCAP and RIAA fees and can than broadcast.
The smaller radio stations I'm not sure...just like I'm sure they are
tons of bars and clubs out there that don't pay their fees.
I think you're thinking about 1997. ;)
DJs aren't artists; even at their "best" they are still playing other
people's music (unless they are producers playing all their own stuff,
which is what DJing as a whole should have progressed to years ago).

*reply #3-

An analogy on the artist argument. If a dj can't mix music made by
another artist, should a painter be allowed to paint the works of an
architect or other types of visual artists?

*reply #4-

hi scott. i can answer as someone who broadcasts at a FM/internet
station, whus.org

we haven't heard much yet from the RIAA regarding regulating our
operations, but it seems clear to me that they wish to have a very
active hand in helping to shape the regulations of digital radio, a
format which, being digital, will be much easier to monitor and
control.

however, part of being a broadcasting radio station is paying
performance royalties to the RIAA based on the number of hours of each
genre you claim to broadcast. i don't know what they are specifically,
but they've been around a while. i don't know what happens to someone
who doesn't pay these fees, and i wouldn't be surprised to hear the
RIAA claim they're owed -- if they haven't already.

so yeah, the *increased* regulations seem, so far, to be proposals or
at least not finished yet.

some of the radio stations employing 'ok' lists, i would have to
imagine, do so only out of a desire to comply with the law, something
that not everyone can afford to ignore. in addition, 'automated' radio
stations are the norm these days; 90f commercial stations run on
dedicated song library computers; from an operations standpoint, this
makes producing carts, promos, and commercials a lot easier, and makes
accounting for specific exposures possible. it's not surprising to see
entrepreneurs trying to create a internet media empire while it's
still cheap and freeish; these jagbags clearly are the type to pay
attention to retarded rules and good taste all together by using
preset autosucker playlist machines.

the restriction compromises only the artistic intent of someone who's
averse to broadcasting good music on commercial channels -- but then
again if you've ever played on commercial radio, or gotten paid for a
gig, this is irrelevant.

but yeah, as long as i'm alive, there will be someone to merely offer
a middle finger to the establishment, so i'd have to imagine others
would as well.

p.s. post a mix, n00b

*and finally a reply from a friend-

thats crazy what they are tryin to do though... thats messed up cause there are sooo many djs who dont have labels and that is their only way of getting their stuff heard... its such a messed up world out there, (riaa et al) need to be worrying about more important things...



*now perhaps you can see my frustration beginning to loom here... the places i play for didnt have a deep reply based on personal feelings or beliefs, not did they seem to express any accurate knowledge in the issue, and as far as the law goes, ignorance has never been an acceptable excuse.

my replies from my community let me down terribly. only one person gave me a decent answer, and it was a great answer. one told me what riaa does, which was not what i had asked. one person apparently didnt not even understand the point of my issue, and one person was a smartass and sidestepped my issue to express his defining point of view, which as it turns out is narrow and limited...

my friend seemed to agree with me and commiserated whole heartedly on the issue, which was nice, because even if a person doesnt have any experience djing, broadcasting, or knowledge of the riaa, then they can simply express an opinion about what the riaa is doing. now, everyone has to have some thoughts on that. im not asking what artists can and cant do. im not asking if djs are artists. im asking if the riaa trying to express too much control over something. my answer is and overwhelming yes!

artists should be able to work artistically on anything they want to as long as they give credit where it is due. (edm) djs are artists as they construct audio collages composed of various audio they deem best fitting for their piece. they do not play entire songs from start to finish, but rather weave them in to one flowing work. this new composition is their creation. to be told what you are allowed to choose from is restrictive not only to an artists creativity, but to an artists freedom of expression which i understand to be unconstitutional. now that is very serious to me. perhaps i should be the one seeking legal action and not the riaa... considering the riaa is a company comprised of labels and private companies, it is sad that the artists whom they are supposedly setting these rules for do not have any say in the issue. the label does. the riaa get the money. the labels get the money. the artists have not reported seeing this money. as far as i am concerned they do not see a cent even though supposedly they should see less than 40f the paid licensing fees that the radio stations and/or djs pay for. there is a word for that: greed. the artists go to the work of making this music and the best shot the get at seeing monetary rewards for their labor is when they go on tour, because once again, the labels are getting most of the money for sold albums.

i was annoyed my my community's lack of response to my plea. even on here i got nothing... the thing that bothered me most about this was that they claim to be very politically minded and very musically supportive, among other things. i think three days is fair time to wait for replies considering these people write several times a day, every day. to think i got only four replies is amazing considering they have talked about who's going to an event on friday, that snoop dog was making headlines again, that someone was being teased for her age at work, etc. they were commenting on everything unimportant. it was like they could not care less about what the riaa is doing. i would think if they wanted to preserve their scene and let it grow, then they would at least think about it a bit, even if they were going to do nothing about it at all.

it offends me to be surrounded by hypocrites and assholes. if you could care less then dont get involved in the first place, or at least dont say you care when you really dont. i am a dj, i am a producer, i broadcast, and yes, i am pissed off!