||[Mar. 19th, 2007|03:53 pm]
I subscribe to a website (www.di.fm) that streams trance music all day for me to listen to at work, all day, every day.|
This makes me happy.
On March 2nd, the Copyright Royalty Board made a decision about rates for webcasts that is likely to destroy Internet radio utterly.
This makes me unhappy.
FAQ here, write your congresscritter here.
I want the ability to wave my magic wand and cause
organizations things that displease me to suffer catastrophic existence failure. Grr.
Wow. OK, I'm surprised. (This really doesn't match what I would have expected, from reading a tiny bit of the decision yesterday, but I was skimming too fast.)
One might have expected that the Internet radio companies would trumpet the 5x ratio in their copy. That would have been a lot more compelling to me than, "it's more than even our revenue is!"
Of course, is there any sort of implicit payment to artists or songwriters through other fees that radio broadcasters pay for their station licenses? (Here, I really have no idea how the US works: in Canada, the answer is yes: part of radio license fees turn into a fund that somehow promotes [and maybe even helps to produce?] CanCon. But I can't recommend that, because we also have other absurdities like the blank media levy, and ...)
But it occasionally leads to things like KanKon, so it can't be all bad!
I think the lack of recompense to artists for airplay may be a part of the whole "artists hate the RIAA" thing. Nothing about implicit artist payment leapt out of my (admittedly scanty) research, but that doesn't necessarily figure. Since we're currently in the midst of yet another payola scandal, I think maybe it goes the other way, if anything? Dunno.
Er, you mean Kon Kan. (I was just listening to that last night at the gym!)
I didn't realize there was yet another payola scandal in the US. Oy.
I should listen to one of my music streams now, just to have done so some more. I'm not sure in the case of the one I have in my iTunes how I even could pay them...