RoR: Forum

Rebirth of Reason

Forum : Article Discussions : Must the Senate Butt In?

Wednesday
August 8, 2007

Must the Senate Butt In? by Tibor R. Machan

As I do my frequent working trips around Europe, I often listen to webcasts from various good radio stations. I am especially fond of one that offers all piano jazz, all day round, with just a few ads.

There is a persistent message, though, that the management airs, having to do with a bill in the US Senate that aims to establish what its promoters call Internet Radio Equality. One Rep. Jay Inslee (D-WA) has introduced one in the House that would reportedly overturn a recent ruling that requires webcasters to pay a flat rate per song streamed, rather than the traditional percentage of their revenue.
The website about this bill reports that something called "the Copyright Royalty Board recently raised rates on Internet webcasters, who will soon face greatly-increased fees for streaming music on their stations." It goes on to state that when this occurred it "affected not just Internet broadcasters but noncommercial groups like NPR, and the broadcasters filed an appeal of the decision earlier this month, but were denied." The management of the piano jazz station to which I listen so loyally urges listeners to call their senators and leave messages urging the passage of the Senate version of Jay Inslee’s bill so they can continue to offer the music they feature without what they fear will be onerous fees. (Read more...)
Discuss this Article (11 messages)

Wednesday, August 8, 2007 - 7:32am

This is an interesting topic. I fear it goes along with other such brilliant ideas as the supposed but truly non-issue of net neutrality. I doubt that Congress is taking a principled stand on any of these issues, since it seems apparent that the only matter that they understand in these disputes is that the more they debate meddlesome new legislation, the more they will rake in in campaign contributions.

Indeed, to a large extent, John McCain was able to foist McCain-Feingold upon us due to the large war-chest he had accumulated from the 1996 Telecommunications act, a disaster that led to the Qwest and WorldCom scandals and brought down AT&T which could not compete with Bernie Ebber's fraudulent business model.

I would be interested in any links of value on this subject, since this is the first mention I have heard of this newest proposed boondoggle.

Thanks, Tibor.

Ted Keer

Wednesday, August 8, 2007 - 8:38am

Interesting topic Tibor.

I also listen to a Jazz internet radio station and have been bombarded with the same requests to "contact my Senator" regarding the royalty payment issue. One point they raise in these pleas is that they are seeking the same sort of rate structure that is currently imposed upon satellite radio.

Because of the long-standing interference if the FCC in the broadcast arena, the entire issue of royalties appears to be quite a mess and there is probably no simple way out at this point without throwing the industry on it's head. I do agree that these issues could be easily and best solved by normal market forces, but as you say, that never brought in a campaign dollar!

By the way, what piano jazz station do you listen to? I would like to give it a try.

Regards,
--
Jeff

Wednesday, August 8, 2007 - 10:09am

www.luckysevenradio.com

Wednesday, August 8, 2007 - 4:13pm

Tibor wrote:

> www.luckysevenradio.com

Thank you. The station I listen to is the jazz feed of www.radioio.com. They are going through a major shake-up right now so their normal web pages are off-line, but should be back soon (so they say).

Wednesday, August 8, 2007 - 5:50pm

There are clearly problems in assigning royalty payments that go well beyond the time and expertise I have available.

I note, however, in passing that the hit tune "Rythm of the Rain," reportedly garnered ZERO $ for the actual musicians involved, alledgedly due to predatory pratices by the record labels. Meanwhile, copyrights have been outrageously extended due to pressure from Disney. All the old books that I bought that were out of copyright when I bought them with the idea of image-mining them are now back in copyright, effectively destroying my investment.

Yet another realm in which a social contract would likely work miracles in straightening things out.

Wednesday, August 8, 2007 - 9:24pm

What do you mean "a social contract"? Why not just a contract?

Thursday, August 9, 2007 - 8:06am

I always shudder when I hear politicians use the word equality. Lots of Internet radio broadcasters are complaining about rate structures, etc. It's bad all around because I don't think any radio station should be obligated to release its financial numbers, etc.

What may eventually happen is that all Internet radio will be done from "rogue" states. Maybe it will be Brazil, Switzerland, or Andorra. It will, thus, be driven underground. They will operate like tax havens.

Right now, anybody can set up a web site anywhere. Realistically, nobody can stop it for too long.

Thursday, August 9, 2007 - 8:25am

What do you mean "a social contract"? Why not just a contract?

Exactly!

- Bill

Friday, August 10, 2007 - 12:35am

Nice to be on the same page with you, Bill, on something finally, after nearly four decades of pretty friendly but constant disputation.

Wednesday, October 3, 2007 - 9:25am

The people who create the music to which you listen, the composers and the performers, are not directly represented by the RIAA or its subsid, SoundExchange. Those composers and performers rarely have a direct relationship with the individual webcaster, it is the RIAA which is calling the shots claiming it represents artists. It's website admits that it represents record companies, mainly the big ones. That's one; two, RIAA doesn't negotiate rates, it dictates them and then sues you if you don't agree. Plus, the RIAA provides a blanket license, which can be likened to this analogy: you want to rent a room in a hotel, the hotel tells you that you have to rent the entire hotel to do that. If your favorite webcaster cannot afford the rates dictated to it, it will diappear and then where will you be? The reason for governmental intervention is that the RIAA's hidden agenda is not to allow webcasting at all but to require consumers to pay for every note of music they get by whatever means--meanding no webcasting, just paid downloading. No free music at all, if the RIAA had done this at the birth of radio, there'd be no radio today. Is that what you want? I think that the webcasters have to all go on strike, just stop the music completely and wait for the public to lynch the RIAA.

Sunday, December 7, 2008 - 10:51am

This area of intellectual property rights is complex. My brother is a muscian, music producer, and song writer with some major credits to his name, and I hear his take on things now and then. He quoted his lawyer one day, as saying, "Remember, you're trying to get paid for selling recordings that people can hear for free on the radio."

Here on this forum we know that property rights continue to be under attack, and that intellectual property rights are the most often attacked. The music business has seen the worst of this. When the internet had enough connections with moderate speed, and music became available in digital form (the CD), everything changed. The day a new CD became available in a store, became the day that those tunes became available for free on file-share servers. My brother, after a lifetime of passionate involvement in the business, and many successes, is now at a loss as to how to make a living. He can't release anything that won't be stolen that same day.

Because the average internet connection speed wasn't fast enough, that did not happen with movies - the files are so much larger. But download speeds are increasing and we will soon see that market similarly effected. To go digital is see the control of your property disappear and to see wide spread theft go unchallenged - even championed as an entitlement.

Here is an area where government should act - and hasn't, at least not effectively. The long term trend for human activity is to vest greater and greater portions of capital - of value - in intellectual form, and the superior form of representation is digital - but in today's moral and legal climate that means we are marching full speed ahead into a collectivist wet-dream of your property is my property.

Here are some blog entries from my brother that deal with the music business. He is not an Objectivist, but does write well. (Start from the bottom and read up).