A Reprieve for Internet Radio

westlake writes "In the wake of Internet Radio's Day of Silence, SoundExchange has proposed a temporary $2500 cap on advance payments 'per channel/per station.' The Digital Music Association responded immediately in its own press release that it would agree to this, but only if the term for the new arrangement were extended to 2010 — or, preferably, forever. On another front, SoundExchange seems aware in its PR that it will have to concede something more to the non-profit webcaster, if it is to avoid Congressional action."

Still a chunk of change

[Anonymous Coward]

And wasn't the contention that they were demanding these fees even from stations that exclusively "broadcast" public domain or copyleft works?

It's the end of radio, can you hear me now?

Re:Still a chunk of change

[clickclickdrone]

>It's the end of radio, can you hear me now?
Reminds me of "WXJL Tonight" by The Human League from 1980 about the last DJ on the air lamenting his fate as all the other stations have gone over to 24/7 automatic stations without any chat inbetween the songs.
And now I'm left alone
I haven't got a word to say
And youre the one who makes the choice
To turn me on or turn me off
But now it really matters

Testing the waters?

[FiniteElementalist]

I'm curious if part of this back and forth is the recording industry trying to see how hard they can push on internet radio before they push too hard and it backfires. Effectively killing internet radio in the US seems like it would be pretty far beyond that point, as it would be hard for congress to look the other way on that. The temporary deal could then just be to ratchet down the tensions so they can find a more viable way to profit from or inhibit internet once it falls out of public awareness.

Or it could just be that they are incompetent with dealing with internet distribution of music. That wouldn't be unprecedented.

Just say no.

[WindBourne]

These stations need to start up alternate stations that make use of indies. The only reason why soundexchange/riaa is agreeing to this, because they are realizing that they killing the golden goose.

Heh Heh Heh

[LordPhantom]

FTA: "DiMA would agree to a $2,500 per-service cap for the entire term of the CRB ruling (through 2010), but not the partial-offer presented to us in writing, which would terminate in 2008.

Why not longer, DiMA? If I were SoundExchange, I'd be amused with this - the longer they can make 2,500 the maximum, the more erosion of actual costs (inflation) will happen. $2,500 isn't what it used to be.

Re:Just say no.

[zygotic mitosis]

This is the truth. Besides, we all know that indie bands are better. Who wouldn't prefer Minus the Bear to Fall Out Boy? K-OS to R Kelly? Anything to Nickelback? I hope the industry realizes that the successes of popular bands like Wilco and Pearl Jam as independent artists are not flukes.

Re:Still a chunk of change

[Anonymous Coward]

> Reminds me of "WXJL Tonight" by The Human League from 1980 about the
> last DJ on the air lamenting his fate as all the other stations have
> gone over to 24/7 automatic stations without any chat inbetween the
> songs.

More or less, it's just a more contemporary and humorous riff on that idea. [scenepointblank.com] I've got the travelogue album on vinyl somewhere, I'll have to dig it out.

Re:I hope something happens soon

[ClaraBow]

Okay, fair enough, it sounds like an advert, but I was just trying to say that sites like Live365 offer great a variety of radio stations, and they are invaluable for people who like to explore different kinds of music in a legal and inexpensive manner. But I concede to the fact that I sounded like a front person for Live365, but I'm jut a fan.

Finland..

[Anonymous Coward]

Around 2000, when net radios were starting to pop up, the finnish equivalent of RIAA killed off all net radio activity in finland exactly the same way.

Now - last week - they've turned around and are excited to offer this brand new venue for artists to reach their audience!

It would be interesting to know the details of the new contract..

Why SoundExchange?

[EPAstor]

Does anyone have any information as to what part of the law empowers SoundExchange to collect royalties for artists who do not have an explicit agreement with them? Personally, this is starting to seem like the most worrying thing about the state of US copyright, given how many ties I've heard cited between SoundExchange and the music distribution companies. It seems strange that this organization is allowed to collect on other people's work, especially since I've been given to understand that SoundExchange will not pay out royalties to the artist unless the artist in turn pays for a SoundExchange membership...

Re:Let internet radio die

[jez9999]

I'd rather see them going offshore, surviving whilst the RIAA still dies anyway.

Re:"didn't realise"

[Opportunist]

I'd hope that you're right. But I don't think the dino wants to die. It will cling to its life with all its might, and the mafiaa has a lot of (financial) muscle. As long as people buy hypecrap, this doesn't change.

Now, internet radio is dealing a serious blow to the mafiaa. Remember that radio is maybe the most influencial medium when it comes to making some kind of music mainstream. You hear it all the time, so it's gotta be good. It ain't the other way around anymore. It used to be (ok, some 50 years or so ago), that music was good, people liked it, so radio played it to attract listeners. Today, it's reverse. Just like in every other industry. Without real competition, and everyone selling you the same crap, you have no choice but to accept the crap and choose from different equally crappy products. Thus it doesn't hurt a radio station to spew hypecrap instead of playing music.

Internet radio sure hurts this kind of revenue stream. Quite a few internet radio "stations" are ran by people who want to play "their" music. Who have a certain liking and want this to be heard. And they sure as hell won't hype some crap song even for money. If anything, they ridicule it.

Can you see why the mafiaa isn't really too fond of the idea of internet radio?

Re:Testing the waters?

[morgan_greywolf]

Both. The recording industry hates the Internet precisely because it will eventually eliminate their business model. That much is obvious. I don't think it's like the recording industry wants to eliminate the Internet as a means of music distribution -- they just want to slow it down enough until they can ensure that they will continue to be a relevant part of music distribution.

In the end, I don't think they will ... the tide's already turned against them. But watching the show of them going down is going to be spectacular.

Re:Still a chunk of change

[jaweekes]

Unfortunately that is almost here. Steve-FM [steve-fm.com] in Columbia, SC does not have a DJ, and plays "whatever we want", so no requests. The sadder part is that it's the best station in Columbia, and has risen to be No. 1 in the area because it doesn't have a DJ.

Re:Still a chunk of change

[michrech]

Unfortunately that is almost here. Steve-FM [steve-fm.com] in Columbia, SC does not have a DJ, and plays "whatever we want", so no requests. The sadder part is that it's the best station in Columbia, and has risen to be No. 1 in the area because it doesn't have a DJ.

What would be cool (though not for DJ's) would be to combine the "music playing robot" with some AI. Set up a phone bank (obviously hooked up to a computer). Link it to your music catalog. Let people call in and "request" a song. Once a song gets x amount of votes, play it in the next rotation.

Oh, the possibilities with such a system.

Re:Testing the waters?

[beyondkaoru]

they just want to slow it down enough until they can ensure that they will continue to be a relevant part of music distribution.

they (and the music industry is certainly not the only one) don't want to slow down the internet, they want to make the internet like television. perhaps inadvertently, stuff like nat has done it for them; many people don't get the ability to receive tcp connections, and to receive udp (from people you didn't first send a packet to) one often has to do weird little dances like stun. if you can't receive connections even though you want to, well, we've broken the original idea behind the internet. there's nothing wrong with having a firewall that blocks incoming connections... there is however a problem with it being forced on people.

so, making programs in which willing computers can talk to each other -- you know, the whole reason we have the internet -- is harder. not impossible, certainly, but it is at least more annoying.

on the web, unlike the raw internet, there are essentially producers and consumers: a model long standing industries are used to. a client requests a server to do stuff. and as we've seen both here and elsewhere, the existing industries would like very much to be the _only_ producers.

with the internet, we have the opportunity to do more than just port 80, and by gosh we should.