What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
How Private Online Shopping Clubs Work view!
howlifeworks.com - How to become a member and get discounts of up to 80% on must-have luxury goods
39 Comments
- actionscripted, on 10/12/2007, -2/+45And here's a simple online way to take action, thanks to the EFF:
https://secure.eff.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=221
If we can make the New York Times for some HD-DVD encryption shenanigans, imagine what we could do for online music. Hell, imagine what we could do PERIOD. I think we're well on our way to proving that you should respect a like-minded group of millions.
Let's start showing our strength. - 1Bit, on 10/12/2007, -3/+40If we show the same vigor for this cause that we showed on Tuesday, then perhaps we could get something done..
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15Kibi, I wish I could agree, but they've shown no ability to learn from stupid mistakes.
- jkramlich, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12A phone call is worth a 100 emails. It only takes a minute. If you are saying to yourself someone should do something about this...that someone is you.
- Psyael, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11@fowleryo:
Well, that's di-fi for you. I've seen such responses from her before. Senators are supposed to do what they think is right instead of acting purely at the whims of their constituents, but she takes it a bit far.
Representatives from the House, on the other hand, are supposed to fully represent their constituents, and that 2004 Act mentioned was born and passed in the House. I'd recommend anyone emailing a Senator to give their region's Representative a go, as well. - fowleryo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10I wrote mine had a response that was a bit different...
Dear Mr. Fowler:
Thank you for writing to me with your concerns about the Copyright Royalty Board's recent decision on the statutory rate for music webcasting. I understand your concerns and appreciate the opportunity to respond.
Under the Copyright Royalty and Distribution Reform Act of 2004, Congress - at the behest of webcasters - created the Copyright Royalty Board which consists of three judges. By law, the judges are a venue of last resort and are required to periodically set rates for various statutory copyright licenses in the event that webcasters and copyright owners are unable to reach voluntary agreements. In the absence of an agreement, the judges set a rate designed to approximate the fair-market value that webcasters should pay to artists and performers for streaming their music for the years 2006-2010. The new rate that was established is less than a 5 percent increase of the rate in effect from 1998-2005.
Although a few webcasters have recently claimed that the process was unfair, it was not arbitrary and allowed representatives from all sides to make their cases. The judges began the proceedings in 2005, and heard testimony from dozens of witnesses and conducted a comprehensive review of tens of thousands of pages of evidence submitted by all interested parties over an 18-month period.
While some webcasters may choose to pay this rate, independent negotiations between the parties are still possible and this new statutory rate would serve as the ceiling. Additionally, if it appears that the new rate will reduce the overall amount of webcasting - as well as the overall income from this stream of revenue - the copyright owners may still have an incentive to offer webcasters a rate less than the statutory rate.
I am a strong believer in intellectual property rights and believe that artists and performers have earned the right to be fairly compensated for the broadcast of their works by webcasters who benefit - financially and otherwise - from their talents. Without fair compensation, these artists would not create their works.
Once again, thank you for writing. Should legislation addressing this new rate or the rate-setting process come before the Senate, I will be sure to keep your concerns in mind. In the meantime, if you should have any additional questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact my Washington, DC staff at (202) 224-3841.
Sincerely yours,
Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator - Psyael, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9@*jooloop*
Did you even read what you copy/pasted? He said it was the response he received back. I realized the term "my response" makes it a little unclear but slow down a moment and read. - timmayk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9i wrote my congresswoman. here is my response:
Dear Mr. XXXX:
Thank you for getting in touch with me. I appreciate hearing from you.
I understand your concern with the decision by the Copyright Royalty Board (CRB) regarding royalty rates for Internet Radio broadcasts. As you may know, CRB is a panel set up by Congress to work on copyright licenses and royalty payments. In March 2007, the board set new rates for "Webcasts" that could increase the costs of Internet Radio stations.
I believe that Internet Radio often provides increased exposure for lesser known and new artists. I understand how these new rates could greatly affect "Webcasters" and the future of Internet Radio. Your views will be helpful to me if the Senate considers legislation to address this rate increase.
You may also wish to share these views with the CRB. The CRB may be contacted at:
Copyright Royalty Board
P.O. Box 70977
Washington , DC 20024
http://www.loc.gov/crb/contact/
Thanks once again for writing. Please let me know if I can be of assistance in the future.
Sincerely,
Barbara A. Mikulski
United States Senator
P.S. If I can be of further assistance in the future,
please visit my website at http://mikulski.senate.gov
or call my Washington D.C. office at 202-224-4654
I encourage everyone to do the same. only action by people like us can help solve the problem. - noisician, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8yeah, kibi - way too optimistic... they still have not actually learned the lessons about DRM, online distribution, etc
- wonboodoo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8@fowleryo
Given that Senator Feinstein is re-introducing the equally hostile to Internet radio "PERFORM Act" bill (https://secure.eff.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=221) I think we know who's pockets she's in. Vote her out next time she's up for a election. - counterstriker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6your can if the server is located in America, because America's internet is not a big truck ITS A SERIES OF TUBES!
- Balanced, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4No, the "Mr." is part of the response the poster received from his congresswoman.
- Balanced, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9As long as the vigor doesn't include "ticking everyone off" like the last display.
- roguescout, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4You can also visit savenetradio.org for all the info you need. PLEASE HELP US! This affects all Net radio broadcasters including colleges and universities. We must inform our representatives that the big corporations are using them to legislate us into extinction!
- dweeb79, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4This isn't about the alternatives, this about what we have legal access to now.
- Shadowhawk109, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3chucknorrisman,
Internet radio is a excellent way for small bands to express their music to a greater public without the needs of things like MySpace, which, for some communities, is actually uncool to use. Internet radio also means that you don't need more than one electronic device on if you want to listen to the radio while using your computer. It ALSO means that more people can create radio stations, and that means a greater variety of music available, while specific stations stick to specific genres.
I cannot express how angry it makes me when a real radio station plays something from the 1970's, just to hop to a track from last year, then to hop again to the 1980's, and such. Yes, randomization is sometimes good, and it's always (speaking for myself) fun to reminisce, but not at the cost of hearing overplayed songs following overplayed songs (which has been my experiance on such stations). Internet radio assures that stations will play only specific genres of music, for the sole reason that getting an Internet radio station should be noticably easier to obtain than a FM station (I'm not 100% sure, I apologize if this thought is innacurrate).
Rather than flaming Internet Radio, think about it's potential, and how paying royalties is really damaging the indie bands, who are not signed up with major labels to AVOID paying royalties.
Again, if any of my opinions are incorrect, I apologise. If so, please enlighten me - I do not know as much about this subject (solid facts wise) as I would like. - markman07, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Actually you want to visit http://www.savenetradio.org/ and follow the link that allows you to contact your Representative about the latest bill H.R 2060. This bill will help us if passed! http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:1:./temp/~c1100u2Got::
- ccclex, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4
a much needed reprieve. hopefully, internet radio industry can make of best of it. - Khabi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I wish I could believe that writing/talking to my congressman would do any good here in AZ. Unfrotunatly, every time I've tried its come back as a friendly "***** you" letter.
Either way, off goes another letter. :) - SouthsideIrish, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Anyone listen to TWiT's Net At Nite? The money from this decision apparently gets split between SoundExchange and the RIAA/Record Companies, but if the record companies do a deal with an internet station they then are able to keep all of the money.
I still think this will end with the CRB raising rates to terrestrial, satellite and internet radio, then then the RIAA will do a deal keeping some stations in business. Greedy, greedy people. - etechonline2002, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1everyone needs to stop the whining. internet radio will just get a new platform for there radio.
- ironbear, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The EFF link in this thread is nice, but it has little to do with the SoundExchange rates and H.R. 2060, which the article is about. Please take the correct action and visit http://www.savenetradio.com for a link to contact your Congress person this week.
Your help can save internet radio, which for some reason the RIAA wants to be dead, very dead. Don't make us fire up the pirate radio transmitter, RIAA asshats. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I heart KEXP
- pauljaroszewski, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I got a response from my rep in the house, I live in AZ
- dweeb79, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I think this is my 3rd or 4th comment about this.
It takes only a few moments to call up your local rep. Please don't let big business destroy net radio - kingygk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Sign this petition here to save internet radio. I actually received a response from my senators from this. I know it was just one of their staffers sending the email but I was impressed I actually got a response.
http://www.savenetradio.org/ - stisev, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Come on, digg. Let's show them what we got!
1) DUGG!
2) EFF petition signed!
3) Forwarded to everyone in contact list! - johnnyhay, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I guess called them but he wasn't there. However, I did leave a message.
I hoped that helped. - goat2, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4well look at diane's last name, shes probably in cohoots with the record label owners
- msmaggi, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0I'm a mobile DJ and have been webcasting an ambient/world/downtempo station on Live365 for over 3 years... http://www.live365.com/stations/msmaggi?play and I soooo enjoy it. I play music that wouldn't reach much of an audience otherwise and have listeners all over the world. And when you click on a song in the player window, it'll take you to Amazon where you can BUY THE MUSIC. These arstists wouldn't even be heard otherwise. This decision benefits only more mainstream music(and the industry parasites that feed off these artsists!) and not lesser-known artists trying to reach a wider audience. So I think the CRB is taking this all way too far. I've written to Patty Murry, and Jay Inslee here in WA state, and urge everyone I know to contact their rep's.
Keep the music alive! - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The other night I left a very drunken phone call to my congress person about this very issue. I thought it was funny. Haven't heard back yet, I was probably slurring real bad. ;-)
- Pottersquash, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2HAHA, normal people don't cave to childish antics like Kevin did. Congress couldn't give two cents about the "vigor" of a bunch of children
- futureisours, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1if this doesnt go down at least we have pirate satellites to broadcast the tunes.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1Nah, there's ways around it.
Apparently the people digging me down don't know about 'em. - PATSCRU, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1@balanced,
sorry if effective civic action 'ticks you off'. Please go back into your mothers womb. - phinias, on 10/12/2007, -6/+0Internet radio will remain safe and sound, at least through July of this year, on account of a new decision by the US Copyright Royalty Board.
- KibibyteBrain, on 10/12/2007, -9/+1Actually, I'm sure consumers will win either way this time. Either the royalties are not instated, and we can keep on enjoying internet radio, or they are instated, and down the road the recording industry realizes how stupid of a movie it was to do.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -9/+0Hahaha, good luck enforcing it if by some random chance it becomes reality.
You can't have jurisdiction over any part of the internet :) - *jooloop*, on 10/12/2007, -21/+1"i wrote my congresswoman. here is my response:
Dear Mr. XXXX:"
Your congressWOMAN is MR.xxx??
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is