There's an actual "Librarian of Congress"?

That's awesome.

Also, and on topic: While I do not fully understand the entirety of the licensing fee issues, I do fully believe that the RIAA are a bunch of money-grubbing assholes and therefore fully support whatever anyone is doing to protest them.

FULLY! I'm full of full support!

Thank you for bringing this up, mud. I meant to bring it up myself and totally forgot.

Call your Congresspeoples: Here's how. (I just did.)

Link from LoudCity, which hosts Metachat Radio.

Oh, and the thanks go to Seanyboy, who pointed it out to me.

Oh, and to the DJs: LoudCity has shut down for the day, so you no longer have to make that agonizing "Should I?/Shouldn't I?" decision. It's moot.

And mute!

This is A Good Thing.

The protest silence, I mean, not the RIAA.

Via Slashdot 3 days ago:

(Score:5, Funny)
"Coming up after the break, John Cage's estate launches biggest copyright infringement suit ever."

And:

(Score:5, Funny)
"... five users wonder what happened to their favorite web site."

This is so politically naive, and economically silly, that it's hilarious. I've been listening to Forever Cool* and other commercial streaming stations most of the afternoon, and it's business as usual, except that some channels are "full" today for the first time in memory, meaning they're getting a look at likely live traffic audience numbers in a post-July 15 setting that they couldn't have bought. A friend of mine who is an FM station owner in Nebraska, and runs small Internet streams for his stations bought some short term bandwidth, and has been getting better than expected response. He makes the point that one of the big uncertianties for small and mid-size commercial broadcasters is actually just what kind of market Internet streaming could be, if it weren't being fragmented by non-commercial streams. So, today is a commercial streamer's wet dream.

But in the spirit of Blazing Saddles, and as a former broadcaster, hey, power to the people advertising supported!

*Forever Cool, for example is inserting a PSA about the pushback of royalty rate increases from May 15 to July 15, that it's been running since late May, as it's "stand" on the question. Along with self-promos from Live365 looking for new broadcasters!

It's "politically naive" and it benefits commercial broadcasters in the same way that A Day Without Art or the Day of Silence benefit Fred Phelps.

Big broadcasters like the ones you referenced will be able to find some way to afford the rate hike, even if they lose some profit and whine about it. Smaller broadcasters, like us, won't. Big broadcasters have the resources to record PSAs exhorting their listeners to act out and protect their bottom lines. Smaller broadcasters, like us, don't.

It's a statement. Period. And judging from the number of newly full sites you've found today, it's an effective one.

"It's "politically naive" and it benefits commercial broadcasters in the same way that A Day Without Art or the Day of Silence benefit Fred Phelps."

Not every issue has a sensible Gay Action analogy. Or should be escalated to that level of harrangue, if you're in a real search for solutions.

"Smaller broadcasters, like us, don't."

If you meant don't have a "bottom line," I'd agree with you, but that's not what you meant. For the number of listener hours involved, I suspect most intermittent hobby broadcasters with restricted listener bases wouldn't be priced out of the activity, even at the full SoundExchange rate. But hobby activities generally have a lot of elasticity in pricing.

So, let's open a discussion. Assuming LoudCity stays open for business, and there's no relief on the rate increase, what's the additional freight for Radio Mecha?

Because ultimately, this is an economic issue, where a negotiated rate has already been on offer from SoundExchange since May 22, and not a political issue, at all.

Thanks for telling me what I meant! Appreciate the help!

"...Appreciate the help!"

You're welcome.

Now, under the new rules, what the additional freight? 'Cause I might wanna pay the bill, and be done with it.

This is about keeping the RIAA's paws out of what should be kept as open as possible.

And besides, looking for a political issue is as easy as following the money.

And besides, today's "commercial streamer's wet dream" is a sample of how much less choice there'll be when the little guys do go.

Money IS politics, paulsc. Can you see how even your offer to "...pay the bill, and be done with it" is a political move?

"This is about keeping the RIAA's paws out of what should be kept as open as possible."

I don't understand this comment at all. You do understand what a "compulsory license" is, don't you? You do realize that the compulsion to grant license for use is entirely on SoundExchange and the copyright holders, if fees are paid, right? You do understand that having a compulsory use license model means that if you're interested in legally sharing music, that a compulsory license is your individual guarantee of being allowed to do so? Because there is nothing more "open" from a use perspective in an economic system than compulsory licensing.


hellbient, today is a commercial streamer's delight because they're getting, by voluntary means, something they never would have been able to get by market economics. Literally, they couldn't have paid for the look at traffic they're getting today.

And just for the heck of it, how many Mechans got a message to their Congress critters today, on whichever side of the issue they favor? I'd be interested to see.

I didn't, because I don't see it politically.

"Money IS politics, paulsc."

That seems a pretty cynical view of politcs, muddgirl, and certianly one that SaveInternetRadio.org hopes isn't accurate.

Notice how I didn't say "politics IS money." Throwing money around, restricting access to it, asking for more of it - that's all political jostling. Modern politics itself is pretty much about who gets a bigger slice of the money pie. Thankfully, there are other ways to express political will, as well.

"...Thankfully, there are other ways to express political will, as well."
posted by muddgirl 26 June

And at the risk of getting way over in the weeds, other than the ballot box, which elected the Congress critters that have put the SoundExchange system in place, what, exactly, are you talking about?

Kinda off topic, I was reading something recently (but for the life of me can't remember where) that when proper radio first became available at the beginning of the last century it was deemed a public space that everyone could use that very got co-opted by corporations, so that the free voices of the nations quickly became commercial propaganda, essentially weakening the democratic voice. FWIW, the article was talking specifically about the link from public radio to the internet. I don't see yet a commercial takeover of the internet as a whole, but if the pricing out of internet radio is anything to go by, I'll be watching what happens to the rest of it. That said, why can't we use the radio to protest? It seems the best way. Silence does nothing. We need to raise our voices!

"Kinda off topic, I was reading something recently (but for the life of me can't remember where) that when proper radio first became available at the beginning of the last century it was deemed a public space that everyone could use that very got co-opted by corporations, ..."

It got "co-opted" all right. But not by corporations. By Democrats, in Congress, in 1934.

Before 1927, anyone in the United States who wanted to do so could put a radio station on the air, so long as its operation wasn't a public nuisance. Over 100,000 people, and groups of people, did in the short few years between the end of the Great War and 1927. In 1923, Crosley Radio Corporation had a 500,000 watt version of WLW, a power level which has never been surpassed by another broadcast station to this day, and by treaty, never will be. You could often hear WLW in Britain in the daytime on passive crystal sets, and regular listeners on nightime groundwave in Australia enjoyed its programming on one tube non-regenerative recievers. The Radio Act of 1927 set up the Federal Radio Commission, which was the first Federal body with the power to grant or deny station licenses, and the FRC promptly acted to limit station output power in the face of international pressure. But mostly, it was a technical body that worked to limit the problems of same and adjacent channel interference in the crowded AM band by channel, power, and directional antenna license assignments.

But in 1934, a Democratic Congress politicized radio considerably, with the passage of the Communications Act of 1934, and set up the Federal Communications Commission. All kinds of silly social agendas were promulgated for the next 62 years, such as "Fair Use doctrine," and "community interest" provisions of station licensing procedures. I can personally tell of dozens of farcical proceedings on these two topics alone with commercial stations I was involved in licensing. But mainly, attempts to tinker with communications policy in the U.S. came from the left, until 1996, and produced some seriously distorted operational policies.

In 1996, with the passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, some of the market distortion went away, but the overall profit opportunities in broadcasting had essentially already gone away in the face of other technological innovation. People in the U.S. bemoan Clear Channel a lot, but I know of dozens of station owners who themselves solicited Clear Channel to buy their stations, just to be rid of them.

The long march of the 1934 Communications Act in the U.S. did demonstrate one thing convincingly, however: the real censorship threats in the U.S. are generally from the left, not the right. In every licensing hearing or proceeding in which I ever participated, it was always liberals and community activists who wanted to shut down the radio station. I never once saw a John Birch society member who wanted to turn off the transmitters, say what you will about their ideas in all other areas of life.

And just for the heck of it, how many Mechans got a message to their Congress critters today, on whichever side of the issue they favor? I'd be interested to see.

I didn't, because I don't see it politically.

Ah, see, that clears it up. You are simply uninformed.

It's political because a bill was introduced in May that would overturn proposed rate hike. Therefore, a person can call his/her representative and ask said representative to support said bill. Clearer now?

Also, the gay thing you said up-thread was out of line and dismissive. I was going to let it go, but since you're being condescending, I've changed my mind. It was a dickish thing to say, and you completely misrepresented what *I* said. (Which I suppose you feel entitled to, since you yourself seem to think you know what I'm saying better than I do.) But, if you prefer, find another example of "A Day Without _________" and use it instead. Those were the two most obvious examples. OMG! IT MUST BE A HARANGUE!

"It's political because a bill was introduced in May that would overturn proposed rate hike."

So asking Congress for a better price makes something political? The seven page draft linked from Inslee's Web site (btw, here's a non .pdf version) is exactly direct Congressional price control in its third section. Price negotiations are arguments of principal, since when? And are Congressional price controls really necessary in the land of the free, and the home of the brave?

I'm no more a fan of the Copyright Royalty Board than of the FCC, but the CRB process has at least been reviewed by the courts, and found in order. There's a mountain of testimony already taken which the CRB believes point to the balanced interests of the country being in the rate making it has promulgated. If it isn't, won't the results of implementing those changes demonstrate that its pricing is incorrect? With actual harm cases in hand, it might be more convincing to approach Congress or the courts for relief, in a year or two, if needs be. But if those policies don't cause the kind of Chicken Little collapse the SaveInternetRadio.org folks are going on about, which is CRB's studied contention, what's wrong with the pricing?

And you still haven't answered my question: What's the additional freight for Radio Mecha, at the new SoundExchange rates? Is that because you don't know?

So asking Congress for a better price makes something political?

Um, getting involved in a political process, such as advocating for a bill that relates to the topic at hand, makes it political, no?

And you still haven't answered my question: What's the additional freight for Radio Mecha, at the new SoundExchange rates? Is that because you don't know?

Sorry, was that directed at me? I didn't answer it mostly because the question was buried in too much text and I didn't see it. But no, to answer the belligerent question, I don't know. Seanyboy handles the billing issues. You'll have to ask him.

Nobody will be picking up the full tab for Metachat Radio; it's our community station, so when we have information, we'll discuss it together, and whatever we do will be all together.

Yay.

Taz rules. As always.

I just want to add a couple of things in here.

1) Whatever happens, we'll handle and discuss it together. I'm completely with taz on this.

2) One of the big issues to me is whether or not they'll apply any pricing retrospectively. This (with the general price hike) could put aggregator Net Stations out of business and it could be that I get a huge bill. I'm not happy with either of these two possibilities.

3) I don't know what the additional freight will be. Talk is that it'll be between $700 a month (We're not paying that) and 2 cents a song played during the month. (That's for our 10 user licence). They're getting rid of any discount we receive for not being a commercial station and there's a possibility that aggregation (where we only pay a percentage of the initial broadcasting licence) will be done away with. There will be more news on this in July and I'll tell you about it then.