Haven't done much here lately.

Who knows, I may start blogging music biz issues again soon. Been busy with managing my band's site and doing the facebook/YouTube/twitter (etc.) whenever I've had time to play around online.

Paul Birch of Revolver Records shows his "quality"

Paul Birch shows true RIAA/IFPI colors by threatening to sue a university lecturer Andrew Dubber over things he says (and doesn't say) at his blog.

This story has really gotten the Internet community all 'a-buzz' in a way I have not seen in quite awhile. (Thank's for being a real prick Paul!)

http://www.boycott-riaa.com/article/25234

http://newmusicstrategies.com/2007/06/14/an-ifpi-bpi-board-member-writes/

Where Fred von Lohmann is wrong

http://www.boycott-riaa.com/article/25002 (Copyright Silliness on Campus)

Our pal Fred is still pushing for Voluntary Compulsary Licensing. (In this instance, for those on campus ...as a microcosm or model of what he hopes to bring to the rest of the nation/world?)VCL is fine in theory. It SOUNDS like the smart thing for society to do.However, in practice, I really don't see how it wouldn't be abused if implemented. We have ASCAP and SoundExchange abusing the already existing similar licensing schemes. Look at how many artists who should be getting paid that are not getting paid.If VLC does ever get implemented, who is going to be invited to the table when they draft the details? Will artist interests be represented strongly enough? (Will smaller name indie artists be represented at all?) Or, will the RIAA labels get to dictate the terms of VCL?I know Fred's heart is in the right place, but he and others pushing for VCL REALLY needs to think things thru.We need to ensure a way/mechanism for VCL to be fair and not turned into another scam via the devil in the details before implementation.More importantly, we need copyright reform prior to VCL.

I fear VCL would save the RIAA's ass and perhaps thwart all hope for a level playing field because it would be used as a tool to keep the independent's from being able to compete in the marketplace.

Mark's day in Congress

After reading this article:

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2128537,00.asp


...I felt compelled to write the following:

==============================

I struggle with the question about sites

like YouTube needing to be proactive (or not) in pulling down videos and/or submitted content. DMusic, for example, is very proactive in keeping users from posting stuff they don't own. The staff (and even more-so, the regular DMusic users) constantly keep vigil on the new songs that are uploaded. Whenever someone tries to upload copyrighted tunes that they clearly don't "own", DMusic's staff & regular users immediately catch it. Then, the tunes are zapped (and often, the offending person's account too.) But, should YouTube operate in a similar fashion? Sometimes, I think so. However, if sites like YouTube were to become more proactive and restrictive, I fear it would hamper legitimate free-exchange of thoughts and ideas. ========== Who knows? I'm still struggling with this issue myself. Cuban MIGHT be right in saying YouTube needs to be more proactive... HOWEVER, he is wrong to say Google/YouTube doesn't "have the right to hide behind the DMCA" (Isn't it possible that Cuban only wants to hobble YouTube so his own HDTV venture can benefit from the would-be-then-created artificial scarcity?) ============= Folks, look at the big picture and always remember that these squabbles over copyright issues are really about the big names trying to monopolize. Copyright was NEVER intended to be a tool of corporate control over what the people can see/do/exchange with thoughts, ideas, and expressions. But that's pretty much what it has become over the past century. I'm probably never going to see it in my lifetime, but I want total COPYRIGHT REVISION! Let's put copyright back in it's place! As originally intended, "copyright" was supposed to protect the artist/creator FROM the industry so that we COULD freely express and exchange intellectual thoughts, music, and ideas (etc.)

Royalties - a Royal Pain?

In the world of webcasting the following occured:

Determination of Rates and Terms for Webcasting for the License Period 2006-2010 in [Docket No. 2005-1 CRB DTRA] Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings and Ephemeral Recordings

(...denied were the requests for a new hearing by a coalition of webcasters on grounds that there was lack of any new evidence.)

So, as it now stands, commercial webcasters must pay per song as follows:

2006 - $0.0008
2007 - $0.0011
2008 - $0.0014
2009 - $0.0018
2010 - $0.0019

Non-commercial webcasters must fork over $500 in advance annualy per channel or station up to a total of 159,140 aggregate tuning hours ("ATH") per month. After that, they pay the above rates per song played.

Yikes! (Guess I won't be launching any web-radio stations anytime soon.)

And, just who the hell is going to start up a NON-COMMERCIAL station when they gotta pay $500 per year at minimum?

SaveNetRadio.org is obviously and understandably pissed. As I write this, they have a clock on their website counting down (at 15 days, 22 hours and so many minutes/seconds) to the "day the music dies".

All of this revenue for the webcasting licenses is to be collected by SoundExchange (an RIAA appointed/affiliated entity, despite any "official" claims to the contrary.) Terrestrial radio pays NOTHING to SoundExchange. Traditional broadcast radio pays ASCAP/BMI for licensing which theoretically/supposedly goes to pay the artist and publisher.

This new ruling by the Copyright Royalty Board asks webcasters to pay the money (via SoundExchange) to the copyright holder of the sound recording. (RIAA labels for the most part.) Something seems bass-ackwards to me.

Does the RIAA hope to earn any real money from this arrangement? Surely they are not THAT stupid. If these rates stand, NOBODY (likely not even the likes of Yahoo Music!) are going to play ball. Everyone will simply close shop and webcasting will be dead. I wonder. Is this what the Recording Industry wants?

H.R. 2060, The Internet Radio Equality Act was introduced by Representatives Jay Inslee (D-WA) and Donald Manzullo (R-IL ) in an effort to "save" the Internet radio industry.

"While the record industry may try to fight this bill, it's actually in their best interest: They're better off getting 7.5% of the revenues of a thriving new medium — plus all of the positive exposure for new genres and new artists, and associated CD sales, that Internet radio is providing — than 50% to 200% of nothing, which is what they'll get if the CRB decision stands and U.S.-based webcasting essentially shuts down on May 15th... " (www.KurtHanson.com)

Hmm... I am almost tempted to hope the bill does fail. If royalty rate increases can rid Internet of the RIAA's music, the world would be a better place. After all, there is nothing to stop indie music from being heard on Internet radio when the indie artist directly "opts in" with the webcaster. (Side-stepping the whole corrupt system in the first place.)

Support Local and Independent Music!

--Shmoo

Check out my pal George's thoughts about this webcasting controversy over at his site: http://azoz.com

Reboot

Those of you who know me from Boycott-Riaa.com are likely already aware that I have stepped down as the "chief" admin there for the time being. Personal life-changes that bear upon my free-time have dictated this decision. I will still occasionally participate in the forum discussions, and my admin-level access at Boycott-Riaa remains (leflaw apparently doesn't mind my keeping it while on hiatus) so I will still also post front-page articles from time to time. But, for now, I won't be doing much else there. (Believe me, there is a whole lot more to being an effective admin than that!)

I had a personal site of my own called IndependentMusicNews.com which I have also had to let-go. There's no point in paying for the web-hosting of a place I no longer have time to properly maintain.

I still have this old blog. I guess I will use it for my own little rants from now on since a templated blog takes less effort and time to maintain than an actual website. (Plus, it costs me nothing to run.) Anything I write here in my personal blog that pertains to Boycott-Riaa issues will of course like-wise be posted there.

Let's keep moving forward folks! The RIAA and other evils of the world will be limited (if not outright utterly defeated) if we keep on keepin' on.

"Professional Artist" - an oxymoron?

Trying to make even a meager living off of your talent, (be it as a musician, graphic artist, writer, sculptor, whatever) is a conundrum. It is almost always required that the creative artist/performer overly compromise his art by "selling-out" to some degree ...forcing him to play "bitch" to an "established industry" in order to make a buck. In fact, "industry" conspires to make this unfortunate paradigm thrive in order to protect its' monopoly. Thereby, artists who are able to "earn" tend no longer to be making what I would call an "honest" buck.

It is a fundamental flaw in society that needs to be addressed.

(File this rant under "disgruntled"...)