Replies

This would then be a very small yearly cost compared to a fixed percentage of their revenue. However, it put small web radio stations into the position of having to do something that no broadcast radio station has to do.

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.

BTW, one thing I would like to see (though of course since RIAA's real goal is to stomp out webcasting we'll never see it) would be a distinction among streaming 'quality' modes. It's plausible that somebody might record a 192kbps stream of a song and use that instead of buying a CD. It's less plausible that someone would capture a streamed 10-second clip of something that's recorded at 24kpbs and listen to that in place of a CD (it's plausible someone might decide on the basis of hearing such a clip that they did or did not want to buy the CD, but if they like the clip possession of clip would not discourage a CD purchase).

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.

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.