What is Digg?229 Comments
- TxDr, on 10/12/2007, -6/+324***** the RIAA.
- theDevilsDue, on 10/12/2007, -0/+206The RIAA should be thankful for the free marketing and advertising instead of trying to cripple those who provide the service for them.
- Petronski, on 10/12/2007, -4/+171RIAA is dying. They just don't know it yet.
- evensong, on 10/12/2007, -1/+96That's alright. If you're like me, every time an article about the RIAA hits the front page, download an album!
- 35chililights, on 10/12/2007, -2/+89you know, i shouldn't be surprised.
yet, my jaw is hanging wide open.
what a terrible organization. - keyboardduder, on 10/12/2007, -1/+85WTF? it costs $150 per person to listen for a year?! Thats just as expensive as sirius!
- Protonz, on 10/12/2007, -7/+75Hey if the US government doesn't want the business of online radio in their country, fine. There are other sensible countries that will host the servers.
Remember, government is the true problem, not the RIAA. - dattaway, on 10/12/2007, -1/+59That's $150 a year for each radio station you listen to. Listen to just 10, that's $1,500. Wait until you start paying for movies...
- rbk303, on 10/12/2007, -1/+41Holy ***** *****.
Let the RIAA start their own internet radio stream and lets see if they are able to make over 150,000 a year. This has nothing to do with the rights of the artists, it has to do with stripping you of yours.
I like evensong's idea. Everyone download an album.
Here, let me help you get started:
http://www.utorrent.com
http://www.scrapetorrent.com - NX910a, on 10/12/2007, -2/+35I don't even pirate and I would really like to see the RIAA fall apart.
If P2P downloading works in Canada, it will work here too. - apadana, on 10/12/2007, -2/+33What is the reasoning behind this comment?
- Tomholius, on 10/12/2007, -2/+32Good thing the rest of the world doesnit agree with these stupid ***** laws. Just move your servers to Sweden or something and take money away from the US economy.
- dattaway, on 10/12/2007, -0/+28$150,000 retroactively sounds like piracy. The RIAA is raping and pillaging the creativity of our society.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+28"That's alright. If you're like me, every time an article about the RIAA hits the front page, download an album!"
And if you're like me, you'll also seed that album to 1000:1, email it to anyone that might be even remotely interested, and (occasionally) mail the RIAA a burned copy, just for kicks. - Kahnza, on 10/12/2007, -2/+30Another lame attention grab by the RIAA
- diggapleaze, on 10/12/2007, -2/+24OMG did anyone actually go to the sound exchange website yet. HOLY ***** I think it wins the award for the worse designed/coded website on teh internets.
http://www.soundexchange.com
I can't even ***** read the compressed GIF text in the center! - megaton, on 10/12/2007, -4/+22I am by no means an RIAA advocate, but this is an obtusely narrowminded article.
First, the fees incurred would ONLY be applicable to COMMERCIAL BROADCASTS, not your favorite underground New Wave stream. Commercial broadcasts have always had to pay for the priviledge, this is not new. The numbers cited leave plenty of room for profit for the broadcaster -- they are far from constrictive.
Second, non-commercial broadcasters serving up to 220 simultaneous listeners throughout a month have only to pay a mere $500 for the priviledge of broadcasting their "free" music. This is also far from constrictive considering the cost of hosting and bandwidth.
Please read the REAL article to which this blogspam refers:
http://www.kurthanson.com/archive/news/030207/index.shtml
Oh, and ***** the RIAA. :) - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17Here's their address, in case anyone wants to mail the RIAA burned CDs like me:
RIAA
1330 Connecticut Avenue N.W.
Suite 300
Washington, D.C. 20036 - Dumbledorito, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14Who do you think gives money to the congresscritters to get the laws they want?
The playing field between the people and corporate interests need to be leveled. Most stupid laws these days arise from donor companies getting sweetheart deals that screw the rest of us. - thescimitar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12@megaton-
What about small college radio stations that are licensed by the FCC? I live in New York, but grew up in Boston, and the only way I can get WERS (Emerson Radio) is via a stream. It's a publicly supported station, and I very much doubt they could saddle up 150k a year in operating costs TOTAL, let alone for streaming capabilities.
***** the RIAA. - acdcfanbill, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14boy, the RIAA sure wouldn't like me. I listen/buy metal music from non-RIAA companies and listen to songs that can hit 20 minutes long. Playing those on the radio wouldn't quite generate the revenue's they were looking for on a per song basis ;)
- carbon12, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11FTA:
"But wait - what’s this? The new rates apply retroactively to the beginning of 2006. In other words, someone who has been happily (and legally) running their small internet radio station for the past few years is suddenly going to be hit with possibly hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional royalties owed. These bills could easily cause a small, independent broadcaster (and his family) to go bankrupt."
That is ***** *****. - interiot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Can the fee be avoided if a station plays only independent music? Or is the fee compulsory for all artists, regardless of their wishes?
If the fee doesn't apply to independent artists, then this is a boon to independent radio stations, I'd think. The biggest problem with independent music is that there's so much of it, and it's hard for someone to spend a small amount of time and find some of the better stuff out there. DJ's and radio station producers are one solution to this (though something like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collaborative_filtering would be even better) - themoose, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11the RIAA make me want to cry... seriously.
- bradleyland, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14"Remember, government is the true problem, not the RIAA."
I'm sorry, but your thinking is entirely backward to the very concept of a free market. The problem isn't our government, it's the people. The RIAA currently controls the rights to the content. They are free to license it however they want. When the buying public becomes significantly affected to a point where they feel inclined to act, they will. - kennon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8After reading through the LOC CRB website, I couldn't find any proof of this at all outside of one blog post without any direct links to the rate changes.
I call shenanigans. - ki85squared, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9groovel76 must work for Verizon. ;P
- IntoTheWired, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9It also has to be worth listening to, and that seems to be a problem with many independent music stations.
Look, I love independent music. I, along with my friends, host concerts here in Davenport, IA. We're immersed in the local music scene and in independent music in general. I gotta say...good music in the Independent scene is HARD to find. Diamond in the Rough type hard. There is a LOT of crap music out there, and woe to the man who has to wade through it all to create a playlist for an independent music Internet radio station he's not being paid to run. Best of luck to him. They'd get my NPR donation every year if it turned out well. - Nv2U, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9@funmike
Um, no.
That would only be for one listener. Assuming there are 1000 people - and not necessarily the same 1000 people, but exactly 1000 people connected at any given second for an entire year - the figures in the article are correct. - apadana, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7terrya64
I disagree. Internet radio is ***** rad. I would go to shoutcast.com and see what's out there before posting such a comment. Also check out:
http://www.soma.fm - Hellmark, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Uhm, no, the rates are $0.0011, not 0.0011¢. Huge difference. That makes it 0.11 cent. 11 ten thousandth of a dollar.
- JEdwardFuck, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8I'm with TxDr. ***** the RIAA. Who the ***** do they think they are trying to sell our rights back to us.
- mercurysquad, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Even if that were true by whatever logic you have in mind, I have met plenty of German speaking (Turkish) muslims and they are cool people.
- Hellmark, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7What the *****? No damn way that they can generate $150 per listener on average. Royalties for traditional radio isn't that expensive.
- spukeesan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6***** christ... I'm hoping to start up an internet radio station later this year, but it looks like the RIAA's made it prohibitively impossible for a free-market entreprenuer to even attempt a venture into radio.
2 questions:
1) How can one even arrive at an accurate 'performance' figure in order to comply with the RIAA's demands?
2) Would this apply only to music under the major RIAA labels? - iricund, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Utter nonsense. It's worse than the UK regime under PPL and PRS/MCPS.
- sylvinus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I you don't want to pay such royalties you can use music under Creative Commons licenses.
A big repository with 20.000+ good tracks you can broadcast for free:
http://www.jamendo.com/ - Hellmark, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6The figures from the page were based on having 1000 continuous listeners for the entire year though. It is likely that an internet radio stream can have 1000 people, on average, connected at any given time though.
- Dumbledorito, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8I'd pay them 5 bucks NOT to play it. I think even Page and Plant are sick of it by now.
- kevxross, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6wikiyourrights, too bad I'll never make it past the dumbass title.
- oxuultae, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7@ acdcfanbill
Black Metal ist Krieg? - Misos, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6"Look, I love independent music. I, along with my friends, host concerts here in Davenport, IA. We're immersed in the local music scene and in independent music in general. I gotta say...good music in the Independent scene is HARD to find."
Good music is hard to find, anywhere. A significant portion of RIAA 'musicians' are signed to only have a single album released, from which only a single song achieves radio play. The RIAA does not spend its time and resources searching for highly skilled and unique musicians that cater to the taste of certain niches, they sign artists who have a broad appeal with mediocre and average sound.
Independent labels are much more specialized in producing music meant for audiences who have developed and refined tastes.
If you're having trouble finding music check-out services like last.fm, allmusicguide, and pandora. - Dumbledorito, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"When the buying public becomes significantly affected to a point where they feel inclined to act, they will."
They already are. Bittorrent? - aliengoods, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Thank god for Digitally Imported
- jimmiss, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I guess this means all internet radio stations are going to go P2P, encrypted, and most importantly underground.
- hobgobbler, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5On the bright side, college and public radio stations will be forced to stop playing any RIAA music. That ought to finish the bastards off nicely. And since there is no way any of that "retroactive" nonsense could hold up in court, all they would be doing is forcing their own music off the air.
- offwithyourtv, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6In the case of the RIAA, the musicians themselves get paid very little. The record labels themselves are keeping the money and are notorious for ripping off their own artists. Supporting the RIAA != supporting the artists. If anything, it's quite the opposite.
- apeweek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5This story has parallels to what over-the-air radio went through in the late 30's with ASCAP music licensing. ASCAP at that time was the only game in town, and they were strangling radio. Here's part of the story, from http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Music/musiclaw2.html
--
"...In the fall of 1939, then, radio executives met in Chicago to consider forming a rival performing-rights organization that would build up its own reservoir of music and thus could afford not to license ASCAP songs at all. A young copyright attorney named Sydney Kaye drew up an ambitious plan for this rival body. ASCAP laughed. On Oct. 14, 1939, Broadcast Music Inc. filed a charter. On Feb. 15, 1940, it opened offices in New York. ASCAP still laughed. In March 1940 it announced its new license deals would indeed approximately double all fees.To which BMI replied that its own fees would be half of ASCAP's 1937 rates. By the end of 1940, 650 broadcasters, or about three quarters of the stations in the country plus all the major networks, had signed up with BMI.
BMI also coaxed two major publishers to jump over from ASCAP: Edward B. Marks, which owned a huge reservoir of popular songs, and Ralph Peer's Southern Music, whose large catalog included many Latin music copyrights. This support, plus the enthusiastic participation of all those composers ASCAP didn't want, put BMI's plane in gear. What got it off the ground, though, was the public. Because most of radio hadn't renewed its ASCAP license, ASCAP music largely disappeared from the air as of Jan. 1, 1941. ASCAP figured the public would howl in protest. It barely shrugged. After almost a year when BMI music dominated the land, ASCAP offered new radio licenses, at rates below previous levels."
--
Let's hope the next BMI is out there somewhere. - bIuebonics, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5all this will do is cause internet radio providers to host their service in another country...
- Hellmark, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4This was put through by a government regulatory commission, and isn't just RIAA stuff.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 214 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is