Small webcasters paying royalties for playing music on the Internet? Yes, it’s only fair.

World Tech Tribune.com ^ | Copyright 2002 - October 23, 2002 | Scott McCollum

[Scott McCollum]

“However, these small radio stations are often just people with an Internet connection, a computer and a bunch of CDs or pirated MP3s who would rather steal from the rightful copyright owner than adhere to the agreements of civilized society. The four years worth of back royalty payments from webcasters were due on Sunday October 20, 2002 but that was postponed by organizations representing the artists including the Recording Industry Association of America (the RIAA is normally considered the villain in these discussions) and Republican Senator Jesse Helms (who is normally always considered the villain to liberals/leftists) has postponed voting on laws that would protect copyright holders on the Internet until after the November 2002 elections. In an effort to keep legitimate webcasters from going bankrupt, the RIAA has asked that a $2,500 'down payment' be made by webcasters and I predict that those that pay the $2,500 and adhere to the new $0.07 per song royalty payment method will be exempt from paying the tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars in back royalties owed to the rightful copyright owners.”

[supercat]

Interesting notion, though I'm curious how AOL et al. would be able to make any money from webcasting under the terms required by these agreements.

Never mind--I already know the answer: the RIAA will give preferential terms to webcasters who honor its payolas.

[steve-b]

Face it...the RIAA is not about protecting the rights of the copyright holders...they are about extracting and exploiting their hard work and talent.

Yep. To put in in the form of one of the old analogy word problems I recall back when they tested knowledge rather than self-esteem:

The RIAA is to Musicians as:

a) The DemocRat Party is to Poor People
b) Operation PUSH is to Black Americans
c) The State Department is to US Interests
d) All of the above

(Answer: d)

[steve-b]

The link problem must explain why this thread somehow got crossed up with the DUmpster, where posts based on ranting and name-calling rather than factual analysis are more commonly to be found.

[supercat]

Face it...the RIAA is not about protecting the rights of the copyright holders...they are about extracting and exploiting their hard work and talent.

Those who push for ever-tougher copyright laws like to mention that Stephen Foster died penniless despite the fact that he wrote many songs whose popularity and familiarity persists to this day.

To them I would respond that under today's laws, Stephen Foster would still have died penniless, but since people wouldn't be able to freely share his music, he would also be unknown.

Per the Constitution, the only legitimate function of copyright is to promote the sciences and useful arts. The language makes this quite clear (indeed, rather than saying "to [pass copyright laws] for the purpose of promoting the sciences and useful arts" it says "to promote the sciences and useful arts by passing copyright laws for limitted terms". Unfortunately, many statutes and regulations seem designed explicitly to stifle the arts rather than promote them. And the notion of "limitted terms" has become a joke.

BTW, while I do not agree with the current media classifications which do not recognize the concept of 'performance copyright' on phonorecords (the latter term referring to music recordings in general, independent of particular medium) since the lack of such copyright, combined with the blanket licensing by ASCAP/BMI, prevents an artist from forbidding use of his work to promote messages with which he would disapprove.

Nonetheless, given the RIAA's overt abuse of the powers they have been given, I would be extremely loath to offer them any more.

[aruanan]

Interesting notion, though I'm curious how AOL et al. would be able to make any money from webcasting under the terms required by these agreements.

Avoiding a loss can be as big an incentive as a prospective gain. This is from my uncle who has been a professional in the broadcasting business for many decades. He said that originally the RIAA had sought to make radio stations keep such onerous records for per song charges that the radio stations simply refused to do it. The compromise was for a percentage of revenue (even if only one song was played a single time during the year). The innovation which effectively screws over web radio stations by subjecting them to terms that broadcast stations successfully rejected is simply unfair.

[steve-b]

The **AA's abuse of copyright law (repeated extensions to evade the "limited terms" clause, infringements upon fair-use rights to back up, shape shift, format shift, etc) discredits even their legitimate complaints about real bootlegging. If they won't get their act together and back off the abuses, they could lose the cooperation they need to protect themselves against the real crooks.

It's as if a merchant, annoyed with a few habitual shoplifters, started sending out goons to forcibly search people at random to see if they had any of the stolen goods. The community, which would normally be willing to help out in bringing the thieves to justice, would quite naturally withdraw any such sympathy.

[WyldKard]

The bottom line is that according to the US Copyright Laws that are based on the rights afforded by the US Constitution (which most FReepers normally love to quote) the only legal way to reproduce a piece of recorded music -- uploading, downloading, ripping MP3s from a CD, broadcasting to an audience, etc. -- is to get permission from the owners of the copyrights. It's called obtaining a "license" and webcasters are not immune to that law.

Contrary to what your Mistress Hilary says, the concept of "fair use" DOES exist! If I shelled out $18 bucks for an overpriced CD, you better damn well believe I have the right to copy it onto my personal MP3 player for my own PERSONAL use. Please tell me why you think the RIAA has the right to chage people multiple times for the same amount of content.

[Paul C. Jesup]

There is just one thing, the RIAA also want webcasters that DON'T play RIAA music to pay also. And that is extortion.

[BlazingArizona]

Amazing that anyone pointing out that broadcasting copyrighted music over the Internet is the same as broadcasting over public airwaves must be a "shill."

The controversy is that Internet radio operators want to pay the same BMI/ASCAP royalties as broadcase radio. RIAA wants them to pay extra fees it pulls out of its butt. In what way is this fair?

[Caipirabob]

Here's a quick assessment of the RIAA and their ability to deal with reality:

"Ugg...no one going to use this thing"

[steve-b]

Since Scotty's second attempt to post a link actually worked, I was able to find their forum. He's getting slagged on his misrepresentations there, too, by everybody except the moderator.

[Scott McCollum]

Guess Stevey forgot that an admission of his lying about the "broken link" to begin with automatically shows Stevey never had any basis for his initial personal attack on me to begin with...

Dropping FReeper-friendly catchphrases like "DemRats" into a post while whining about some of the basic tenets of free market capitalism doesn't make you a real conservative, kids. Real conservatives don't complain about perceived barriers to market entry, they usually just build their businesses up steadly to a point where they can buy and sell their competitors.

[BlazingArizona]

Dropping FReeper-friendly catchphrases like "DemRats" into a post while whining about some of the basic tenets of free market capitalism doesn't make you a real conservative, kids. Real conservatives don't complain about perceived barriers to market entry, they usually just build their businesses up steadly to a point where they can buy and sell their competitors

You still haven't answered our question: why should webcasters have to pay special fees over and above the royalties-per-play that radio stations pay?

[steve-b]

lying about the "broken link"

Nope; your first attempt to post the link (at the top of the thread) remains as broken as ever. Who did you get to do the second attempt (Msg#12) correctly?

his initial personal attack on me

Falsely claiming a personal attack is itself a personal attack. Consider this Strike One (Strike Three gets the Abuse button pressed...).

Real conservatives don't complain about perceived barriers to market entry

Real conservatives reject (and, when possible, repeal) government-created artificial barriers (e.g. charges levied upon A but not upon similar B because A has the inside track on a lobby that buys enough Congresscritters). Since you are quite alone here (on this thread, and on FR generally) in opposing this notion, perhaps you should try advertising in a forum where you'll feel more at home.

[steve-b]

There goes my awesome new wave nobody ever heard of them but a few of us nuts music.

You said the secret agenda! Watch that the duck doesn't hit you in the head, and don't spend the $100 all in one place.*

Perhaps after Scotty points out the "personal attack" I allegedly made against him, he can explain why anyone should pay the RIAA one red cent for webcasting (or, for that matter, radio-broadcasting, publicly performing, or singing through a tin-can telephone) music written and performed by non-RIAA-member musicians.

*Geez, I feel old for knowing that one....

[LowOiL]

Real conservatives don't complain about perceived barriers to market entry

Heck, we are all here to complain about too much government and it's barrier to the market. Real Conservatives don't turn a blind eye to overkill (unless they are the monopoly doing the surpression to their advantage).

[dheretic]

Real conservatives don't complain about perceived barriers to market entry

Real conservatives also dont: (in my experience)

1. Support any corporate taxation
2. Support any individual income taxes
3. Support legislation that favors one size of business over another by giving it "relief" from something
4. Support legislation that restricts individual rights to protect corporate profits, ie no restrictions on publishing research on copy restriction systems and working examples.
5. Support trade organizations that lobby Congress to make it even harder for the little guy to compete

[steve-b]

i.e. no restrictions on publishing research on copy restriction systems

Precisely -- left-liberals blame the gun; sensible people blame the shooter.