Comments on: Internet Radio Day of Silence http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/06/internet-radio.html Dispatches from a Small Business Sun, 21 Mar 2010 02:42:23 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Ryan http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/06/internet-radio.html/comment-page-1#comment-5926 Ryan Wed, 27 Jun 2007 19:59:26 +0000 http://coyote-blog.com/wordpress/2007/06/internet-radio.html #comment-5926 <p>Highway,</p> <p>I guess I still don't the see the rational. So what if the RIAA wants to put internet radio out of existence? They are the IP owners, shouldn't they have a say in how much it costs to use their IP? </p> <p>I see the argument that its not fair because traditional radio doesn't have to pay these fees, but again, so what? Why shouldn't owners of intellectual property be allowed to determine what channels their IP is given to the public through? Further, I can agree with the RIAA's arguments that services like Pandora - where the user participates in the selection of songs - decrease demand for purchases of their product. Internet radio *is* different than traditional radio. So why shouldn't it have a different fee structure? The argument that it's all just "radio" so all the fees should be the same doesn't hold water. If internet radio and traditional radio were the same thing, then people wouldn't be so upset that internet radio is threatened. </p> <p>I think the real problem here is that the state of intellectual property law is still very muddled and patchworked when it comes to electronic dissemination through the internet. I think the law in general needs to be overhauled to take into account tech advances, but this is going to be a slow, gradual change. I don't think it helps the process by having the public vote itself cheaper rates for intellectual property.</p> <p>Having the public essentially vote itself (albeit through the legislative process) cheap internet radio seems a little iffy to me. How is that any different than the senators who try to legislate cheap gasoline to keep the public happy? </p> Highway,

I guess I still don’t the see the rational. So what if the RIAA wants to put internet radio out of existence? They are the IP owners, shouldn’t they have a say in how much it costs to use their IP?

I see the argument that its not fair because traditional radio doesn’t have to pay these fees, but again, so what? Why shouldn’t owners of intellectual property be allowed to determine what channels their IP is given to the public through? Further, I can agree with the RIAA’s arguments that services like Pandora – where the user participates in the selection of songs – decrease demand for purchases of their product. Internet radio *is* different than traditional radio. So why shouldn’t it have a different fee structure? The argument that it’s all just “radio” so all the fees should be the same doesn’t hold water. If internet radio and traditional radio were the same thing, then people wouldn’t be so upset that internet radio is threatened.

I think the real problem here is that the state of intellectual property law is still very muddled and patchworked when it comes to electronic dissemination through the internet. I think the law in general needs to be overhauled to take into account tech advances, but this is going to be a slow, gradual change. I don’t think it helps the process by having the public vote itself cheaper rates for intellectual property.

Having the public essentially vote itself (albeit through the legislative process) cheap internet radio seems a little iffy to me. How is that any different than the senators who try to legislate cheap gasoline to keep the public happy?

]]> By: Highway http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/06/internet-radio.html/comment-page-1#comment-5925 Highway Wed, 27 Jun 2007 05:04:43 +0000 http://coyote-blog.com/wordpress/2007/06/internet-radio.html #comment-5925 <p>The main issue is that the Copyright Board rubber-stamped license rates that the RIAA came up with, based exclusively on number of listeners. Not based on station revenue, sales, any other monetary amount that's relevant to the station. And with the nature of the internet, that adds up really fast. Basically it was a way to drive Internet radio out of business entirely, because there's absolutely no chance that any internet radio station could make enough money to cover the licensing fees. It's also a fee structure that normal OTA radio does NOT have to pay. </p> <p>See here: http://www.reason.com/blog/show/119011.html</p> <p>This bill would set caps on the amount that stations would have to pay, and treat internet radio more like OTA FM and AM stations. The issue is that the RIAA essentially wants to punish internet radio.</p> <p>*editorializing* The RIAA could actually try to find a way to make money in a new way, but they won't. They want to stick to their old, middleman, ways of forcing everyone to go through them, and are down to using the threat of government to do it. All I can hope for is that there's enough wiggle room to bypass them entirely in the future, or that government (and folks like Microsoft) will quit pandering to them. So bypassing it is...<br /> </p> The main issue is that the Copyright Board rubber-stamped license rates that the RIAA came up with, based exclusively on number of listeners. Not based on station revenue, sales, any other monetary amount that’s relevant to the station. And with the nature of the internet, that adds up really fast. Basically it was a way to drive Internet radio out of business entirely, because there’s absolutely no chance that any internet radio station could make enough money to cover the licensing fees. It’s also a fee structure that normal OTA radio does NOT have to pay.

See here: http://www.reason.com/blog/show/119011.html

This bill would set caps on the amount that stations would have to pay, and treat internet radio more like OTA FM and AM stations. The issue is that the RIAA essentially wants to punish internet radio.

*editorializing* The RIAA could actually try to find a way to make money in a new way, but they won’t. They want to stick to their old, middleman, ways of forcing everyone to go through them, and are down to using the threat of government to do it. All I can hope for is that there’s enough wiggle room to bypass them entirely in the future, or that government (and folks like Microsoft) will quit pandering to them. So bypassing it is…

]]> By: Ryan http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/06/internet-radio.html/comment-page-1#comment-5924 Ryan Tue, 26 Jun 2007 16:43:27 +0000 http://coyote-blog.com/wordpress/2007/06/internet-radio.html #comment-5924 <p>I also appreciate and use Pandora on a regular basis. But I'm a little bit fuzzy on why legislation is the appropriate reform in this instance. </p> <p>Should the recording studios be allowed to charge different rates to internet radio providers? Isn't that their right as the copyright holder? But at the same time, something doesn't feel right about their actions. Why should standard radio and electronic radio be subject to different laws regarding copyright usages? Is an "equalization" bill the answer?</p> <p>I'm not having much luck tracking down concise explanations of why legal reform is the answer here. Anyone have any pointers?</p> I also appreciate and use Pandora on a regular basis. But I’m a little bit fuzzy on why legislation is the appropriate reform in this instance.

Should the recording studios be allowed to charge different rates to internet radio providers? Isn’t that their right as the copyright holder? But at the same time, something doesn’t feel right about their actions. Why should standard radio and electronic radio be subject to different laws regarding copyright usages? Is an “equalization” bill the answer?

I’m not having much luck tracking down concise explanations of why legal reform is the answer here. Anyone have any pointers?

]]>