RIAA Kills Internet Radio

Ok, well it looks like it's "been done." While the RIAA didn't exactly get what they want, they got a significant percentage of it. So, from here forward, it looks like it's going to be rather easy for them to shut down Internet radio stations.

Here on the Library of Congress' site we see the final decision to "tax" Internet broadcasters.


All I can say is that these money hungry morons really suck. Because of them, I guess, I won't be spending money on new albums that I happen to hear on previously cool Internet radio stations


(Sorry for the blatant SomaFM links - just one feature on the Internet that I am going to surely miss... no way he can afford the $500 per day tax - that's like $US15k a month... ouch... makes those redundant T's seem cheap, I'd imagine)

What is going to happen with the whole XM radio idea. I realize that it's a subscription service, but you'll be able to have channels from anywhere...how the hell are they going to tax that? Personally, I've grown tired of the RIAA and CARP. As if they don't make enough money, they have to go after independent broadcasters too.
*growls*

No idea what will happen... but frankly, these politicians couldn't troubleshoot their way out of a wet paperbag, I think. All they see is that "they get more money" without stopping to think that now they have to create new jobs to field/enforce this things, that less people are going to "buy in to it," etc. As has already been said, this is going to do to Internet Radio what the RIAA already did to AM/FM radio (ie. make it a barren, useless wasteland controlled by the mind-controlling a**holes in the record industry).

For hating "underground" stuff as much as they do, it sure seems they go out of their way to help encourage people to move their talents and trades "underground."

I'm p*ssed... (obviously)


(BTW, GG... nice sig... I like... think I'll have to "borrow" it for my sig collection)

2600 has been reporting on this for awhile now. Guess it means that Off the Hook will be taken offline. Just another move by corporations to limit information on the web. Further news on this can be found on 2600.com, where if you pay attention, they make minor notes that some big news sites are saying this is actually a good thing for internet broadcasters!!!

Quote:

---

Record labels had asked for a considerably higher sum. And while large companies such as America Online will be able afford the new fees, smaller garage-operated Webcasters may still find it a financial burden. -Cnet News

---

Quote:

---

While this rate may sound like a small amount, a typical station that plays 20 songs an hour for 20 hours a day would end up owing $102 per listener per year. Therefore, a station with a dozen listeners would pay $1226 per year, while one with 100 listeners, still a tiny audience by AM/FM radio standards, would owe more than $10,000 yearly. Even at the reduced rate of 0.02¢ per song per listener available to certain non-commercial stations, the cost would be $29.20 per listener per year, or almost $3000 for 100 listeners. These fees are also applied retroactively to 1998.
-From http://www.2600.com/news/display.shtml?id=1209

---

:borg:[shadow]We come to take your mind, submit and welcome to the complacency of the conformity. Where mind and body, are one with the mob mentality.[/shadow] :borg:

I think this could actually be a good thing in disguise. It will wake people up. The people who prefered to listen to the streaming stations for the pure fact that they didn't like the idea of downloading 'stolen' songs. Another thing is that; a local radio station broadcasted over the internet also. I heard them bitching about how they won't be able to keep broadcasting over the internet, because of this. Now, I think that was just temporary while the fee's were getting straightened out. It'll be interesting to see if they pay the fee's, or if they quit broadcasting over the internet.

has anyone read anything on what effect, if any, this would have on such broadcasting outside of the u.s.?

Good question, droby...but as the United States would counter.....We own the internet....we control everything. This is the Motherland.... *coughs*

i agree that the motivation (money, control, etc) to counter would exist; i'm really more interested in hearing what others see might be a means to do so.

if 'sold' correctly, they could probably obtain the support and adoption of these regulations. but if this is rejected, then realistically, there is no jurisdiction for the u.s. to tax foreign entities on services without an established presence within its borders....but they could pass the buck onto domestic listeners/patrons of foreign broadcasts (provided that they had a way to track and bill for it - my initial guess being a delgation through provider).

i am somewhat disappointed in your view on internet ownership, though. it might make for an interesting debate, some other time.

droby10 wrote:
"has anyone read anything on what effect, if any, this would have on such broadcasting outside of the u.s.?"
The person that can answer that question must be familiar with intellectual property and international law.
That person isn't me.
I did post it in a Listserv & hope to have an answer for you.

::hide-beh

I actually don't think it would have effect on those outside of the USA, unless of course his highness King George II puts it in one of those nice global anti-trade anti-peace treaties he's been sending out everywhere lately.