The US killed independent internet radio today

Great Debates
21

The question, really, is what is the next move of the RIAA? It seems they will stop at nothing to use bought political power to achieve their aims of maintaining their monopoly.

Between this and the latest NPR deep-linking scandal, it seems more and more that the Net is transfiguring into something pretty ugly.

If only, sigh, there was an actual way to get a good boycott going of the major record labels - to hit them and hit them hard. The problem being, of course, that so many of them are in so many other industries (movies, DVDs, etc.) that it will be hard, if not impossible, to carry one out. Never mind the fact that the vast, mooing herd of American rabble will still continue to eagerly buy $16 CDs and pay $8 a ticket to see the latest Hollywood ejaculation.

22

I agree that the indepedent labels are the ones who are getting crushed but, it has to be said, they were getting crushed long before the present assault on indep. webcasting. The first wave of deregulation of radio in 1986, the second round in 1996 (the Telecommunications Act of that year), and, since that time, further relaxation of rules under the Michael Powell FCC have all been about making it all but impossible to hear independent “product” on the radio. Nor do I think that those who act for the government don’t realize what’s going on: they’re simply doing what the industry wants them to do. The commercial broadcaster’s lobby is one of the most powerful in Washington; the entertainment oligopoly gives millions to the relevant senators and congressional reps. This is true of both Republicans and Democrats.

I wanted to post this yesterday, but there were server problems. It’s an article by an awesome writer on media, called Why the Internet won’t sink the media giants. A very thought-provoking read in my opinion and one that helps to put the current situation in context. This is not, I repeat, some kind of innocent blunder on the part of the government.

23

I should have added that the article was written in 2000 when the Time/AOL merger was being debated.

24

Anthracite asks,

This is what they’re trying to do next, and it’s an incredibly bad idea:

http://happyfunpundit.blogspot.com/?/2002_06_09_happyfunpundit_archive.html#77578106

Here’s a few short articles I wrote on what I think’s wrong with the entertainment industry today:

http://happyfunpundit.blogspot.com/?/2002_05_19_happyfunpundit_archive.html#76932690

http://happyfunpundit.blogspot.com/?/2002_02_24_happyfunpundit_archive.html#10282500

http://happyfunpundit.blogspot.com/?/2002_05_19_happyfunpundit_archive.html#76900199

http://happyfunpundit.blogspot.com/?/2002_06_02_happyfunpundit_archive.html#77388954

And here’s how they’re doing it:

http://happyfunpundit.blogspot.com/?/2002_02_24_happyfunpundit_archive.html#10235173

25

No, Visible, don’t die! You have so much to live for!

Besides, I really haven’t changed my opinion overall. I’ll agree I was too quick to assume this was another example of people feeling they have the moral right to ignore copyrights. This particular case is somewhat more complicated although not totally unrelated.

Personally, I agree that major publishing corporations are abusing their power and influencing the government in their favor. But the bottom line is that they own the copyrights and they are morally entitled to protect them. I’d be happier with people who openly admit they are violating copyrights because they want to and can get away with it rather than those who are doing it while trying to claim the high ground.

Ironically, many people who are copyright violaters also call themsleves avid fans of independent artists and publishers. But it’s these independents who are most vulnerable to copyright violation. If you steal a royalty from AOL Time Warner, you can at least comfort yourself with the thought that they’ll still make billions. But the independants are usually living on the edge and it wouldn’t take much of a loss of revenue to push them over it. If you really want to support independent artists don’t just read and listen and look at their art, go out and pay for it.

26

Okay, here is the question. What can we do about this? Simply voting and mailing our Congresspeople is not enough, as my influence is naught compared to the RIAA, although it is a step in the right direction. Ceasing to buy their products is also not an option for me, as I buy very few CDs each year, and go to very few movies. Nor do I watch much TV. Writing articles is usually simply preaching to the choir, people who already know what’s going on. Swapping legal music only gets lost in exchanging illegal music. So what can an average American consumer do to try and combat this trend?

27

Believe me, I do. When I find an artist I like, I hunt down their web site and order CDs and t-shirts directly from them, if at all possible.

The problem is… how do I find these new artists? Conventional radio won’t go near them, as they don’t have teenage lead singers who look good in underwear, so how do I hear about them? How do I check out their music, to see if it’s worth buying their CDs?

Now that mainstream radio has narrowed their musical format to only the most profitable possible artists, internet radio is the only option that lets me legally preview what’s available out there. Let me re-emphasize the word legally; nobody is saying internet radio is in any violation of copyright law at all. After all, I hear a song, and I haven’t saved a copy anywhere. To hear it again, I have to keep listening to the radio station or go out and buy the CD. What does that sound like? Why, radio, of course. Except for some reason, the government has now decided that streaming radio is somehow responsible for paying royalties that conventional radio has never had to pay.

So, in other words, none of this is about copyright violations. It’s about setting the bar for internet radio impossibly high. Charging fees that will put small broadcasters, publicizing independent artists and labels, out of business. And legislating a new medium into non-existence.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but with these new fees going to the labels and the artists (as opposed to the composers, which is where the already-existing fees based on percentage of revenue go), if you’re an internet broadcaster who owns a major record label, aren’t you getting money from the fees? Which means that once again, if you’re rich enough, this fee is a lot less expensive. The media conglomorates win again. Go figure.

28

I just want to stress that IMO this isn’t really about the problem of copyright infringement (though that issue is clealry involved, and, IMO, serves as a kind of front for the longer-term interests).

If copyright infringement were really what’s at stake then the goal would be to force radio broadcasters who are simultaneously webcasting to also pay ruinous rates. There would also be some recognition of the obvious fact that webcasting has as much promotional value for artists as does radio broadcasting.

IMO what this is really about is killing the competition for existing radio stations and the behemoths who’ve invested so much in owning them. As is explained in the article I posted, such behemoths have the motive and the ability to spend megawads simply to make sure that they remain the only game in town. Notice that Yahoo was willing to cut the deal that set the precedent for a ruinous royalty; not, we may extrapolate, because they thought this was “fair,” and long to pay out large royalties, but because they knew that they could pay it and their indie competitors could not.

If you were an entertainment behemoth with millions of dollars invested in the ownership of licenses for radio stations–and with the wireless Internet already in sight–you’d want to do everything you could to make sure that commercially-free indie webcasters didn’t make your investment obsolete. This is the way to eliminate them before that happens. The only viable webcasters will then be the simulcasted versions of existing commercial radio stations–i.e., the repetitive, over-formatted, advertising-laden crap that almost no one would choose over any better option–and whatever additions the likes of Yahoo, AOL, Viacom, et.al. choose to throw our way.

Netbrian, the link posted by Mr. Visible had some links to letter-writing campaigns etc.

As to the larger picture, media reform has been an uphill climb thus far. You may or may not know that there was huge popular support for low watt radio stations that would operate locally in spaces between the existing dial. After years of grass-roots support by community groups, the FCC under William Kennard (Clinton’s appointee) began the process of granting licenses. Communities were ecstactic but commercial broadcasters and NPR had cows and then some. They not only got their buddies in Congress to kill this popular and democratic measure, they also got Congress to make certain that no head of the FCC would be able to make this kind of move ever again.

Still I believe that Internet-related issues may well give create enough public awareness for people to act effectively. Become active in media reform.

Start by checking out The Media Access Project and similar groups.

29

Ah, Mr. V, I missed your last as I posted. What you said.

30

Okay, so we need a plan. I have one but it’s not going to be fun.

Write to your congressman. Talking about this issue on websites and chatrooms may ensure a more favorable audience but it isn’t going to affect the law. For that you’ve got to go to the people in Washington. It’s true that elected officials will suck up for money, but remember, what they really want is votes.

As I pointed out before, the government has not closed the door on this issue. The original proposed arbitration settlement was reduced between 50 and 86%.

Don’t write in sounding like a crank, complaining about corporate conspiracies to destroy our freedom. Cite the facts and point out the disparity between the treatment given to over-the-air versus internet broadcasters. Suggest that new media like internet radio should be treated as analagous to existing media. Ask that the eventual rate be set no higher than the 15% revenue rate the recording companies had already agreed to.

31

As someone who spends a great deal of time writing and recording music, let me pipe in on how I feel.

I allow my music to be used, free of charge, in non-profit situations. It has been used a number of times in student films, public school presentations, and it has been played on non-profit internet radio.

If someone plans to use my music in a video game that is for sale, then yes, I expect to be paid for my work. The video game creator is, why shouldn’t I?

Now to Internet Radio.

IMO I think it’s stupid to charge some kid money because he wants to fire up a radio station on-line and play the tracks he likes. He’s not making a dime off his actions, the music he’s playing is only getting free promotion.

On the other hand, you have a major broadcast company who streams their show on-line. These companies are for profit. They make money by selling adverts squeezed in between the songs. The songs are what make up the radio show. It is only right that the creator of the music get a cut.

32

So you’re basically arguing for royalties based on revenues. I’d like to see that too. But even if weren’t the case that such a policy was just rejected, I’d not be too optimistic since–surprise, surprise–most people don’t actually like listening to commercials and, all other things being equal, will choose a non-commercial over a commercial alternative. (Particularly when, as is now often the case, the content is also better.) Hence the high royalty system becomes a protectionist device to prevent small-scale/indie webcasting from stealing listeners from corporate alternatives. I suppose that, in theory, it is possible for independent labels (at least the ones that aren’t owned by the majors as some are) to negotiate their own much more favorable deals with indep. webcasters (or even to begin their own webcasting operations).

33

Then, actually, this fee will do absolutely nothing for you. At all.

The BMI/ASCAP fees are already being paid by commercial internet radio, so the composers of the music are already being paid, at the same rate that conventional radio stations pay. Same rules, same regs, level playing field.

The fee that was just approved is an additional fee, on a per-track, per-listener basis, which will be going to the artist and the record label. Conventional radio does not have to pay these fees, as they’ve been proven to have promotional value. So now the playing field is completely unlevel.

34

Someone should remind the RIAA and MPAA that just because their business model was at one time successful, neither the government nor the consumers are obligated to keep that business model successful.

It’s called capitalism, guys. Evolve or die.

35

I don’t see how this will harm indie artists. Can’t they waive the fee to allow internet radio stations to play their songs?

36

I’m not what you’d call an economic libertarian, but it seems to me that this problem will be solved in the usual manner: through the magic of a FREE MARKET.

I’m the owner of a small, hip independent label (hypothetically). I let it be known that the music of all acts on my label will henceforth be freely available to all internet broadcasters (or perhaps available for a tiny fee).

So what happens? Acts from my label get disproportionately high airplay on internet radio stations, and college & public radio stations that simulcast on the internet. This increased exposure leads to higher sales for bands signed to my label. Neglected bands at the big labels see this & jump to my label.

Eventually as internet radio becomes more popular, the link between airplay and sales will become obvious (as it is with over-the-air broadcasters). Bands will want to maximize their exposure, so it will be to their benefit to sign with labels that can get them increased airplay over the 'net.

Soon, my company will be joined by many other competitors that see the logic of this…and inevitably the big corporate labels will see the futility of their position and will join me.

No…this will not happen overnight, obviously. But let’s allow market dynamics do their magic. If there’s an economic advantage to disregarding this new royalty structure, then someone will exploit it.

(The above scenario assumes that it is possible for labels to individually negotiate a different royalty rate than the one approved by Congress)