Webcasters to go silent Tuesday

If you tune in to any of your favorite webstreams on Tuesday June 26 and discover nothing but silence, don't panic. That's the way it's supposed to be.

Thousands of webstreams will go silent for the day as commercial and non-commercial webcasters, radio broadcasters, streaming services and even hobbyists turn off the streams to draw attention to an impending royalty rate increase foisted on them by SoundExchange, a front organization doing the bidding for the recording industry, which is attempting to strong-arm webcasters into new and ridiculously impractical royalty rates, the results of which could severely cripple webcasting as we know it.

Participants in this day of silence include some pretty big names. Yahoo, Rhapsody, MTV, Live365, Digitally Imported, Pandora and AccuRadio are just some of the multi-stream providers included. Independent streamers such as Radio Paradise, KQLZ.com and Head-On Radio Network are going quiet as well. Many non-commercial radio entities are also turning off the streams for the day. And radio groups Saga Communications and Greater Media are also going quiet in support of the effort. As of yet, big guns like Clear Channel and CBS Radio have not announced their participation.

Many webcasters are planning to shut off access to their streams entirely, while other webcasters plan to replace their music streams with long periods of silence or whatever interspersed with occasional brief public service announcements on the subject. KCRW in Santa Monica, CA, for example, is replacing music programming with coverage of the Day of Silence. Internet-only webcasters and broadcasters that simulcast online will alert their listeners that “silence” is what Internet radio may be reduced to after July 15th, the day on which 17 months’ worth of retroactive royalty payments — at new, exceedingly high rates — are due to the SoundExchange collection organization, following a recent Copyright Royalty Board (CRB) decision.

In March, the Copyright Royalty Board announced that it would raise royalties for Internet broadcasters, moving them from a per-song rate to a per-listener rate. The increase would be made retroactive to the beginning of 2006 and would double over the next five years. Internet radio sites would be charged per performance of a song. A "performance" is defined as the streaming of one song to one listener; thus a station that has an average audience of 500 listeners racks up 500 "performances" for each song it plays." Since the announcement by the CRB, a large outcry has been heard by webcasters, broadcasters and listeners alike. And there is a growing movement of support in Congress to put the brakes on the CRB's decision.

As for Tuesday June 26, there will be silence. And if the recording industry and the CRB have their way, it could be permanent.

Webcasting fight moves to Congress

After weeks of squabbling between webcasters and the Copyright Royalty Board, Congress has stepped in to protect internet webcasters.

Rep. Jay Inslee (D-WA) and Rep. Don Manzullo (R-IL), along with seven other cosponsors, introduced a bill in Congress (pdf) yesterday that could nullify punishing new rates recommended by royalty collection agency SoundExchange and set by the three judges of the Copyright Royalty Board (CRB) (pdf). These rates, according to many advocates, could have put internet radio in jeopardy for both large and small webcasters, affecting the fees they pay to play music online.

The Internet Radio Equality Act aims to put the brakes on a controversial March 2 decision by the CRB, which would set escalating royalties retroactively from 2006 to 2010 on webcasters, in addition to a $500 annual fee.

Webcasters, including even large internet services and terrestrial broadcast groups such as Clear Channel and NPR, have been fearing the decision, which they claim could have raised royalty rates between 300-1200%, a rate that could put them out of business. SoundExchange has been playing hardball, and has been rather unsympathetic to the webcasters' cause. The CRB has been on the side of SoundExchange since the beginning, and a few weeks ago threw out an appeal by commercial webcasters, National Public Radio and others to review the new rates and postpone a May 15 deadline for the introduction of the royalty schedule (pdf).

The new bill, if passed, would throw out the CRB's decision and set royalty rates at 7.5% of the webcaster's revenue for 2006-2010, the same rate paid by satellite radio. Alternatively, webcasters could decide to pay 33 cents per hour of sound recordings transmitted to a single user. Royalty rules for noncommercial radio such as NPR would be reset.

Webcasters are applauding this move. National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) Exec. VP Dennis Wharton said, "We will work with Congress to craft a solution that helps ensure the survival of a fledgling audio platform."

"This bill asks Congress to reinforce its historic acknowledgement that public broadcasting has a place in the media landscape by modernizing section 118 of the Copyright Act for the 21st century," said NPR VP/Communications Andi Sporkin. "The CRB Board would not consider the public service aspect of more than 800 stations across the country when it made its recent decision. This bill will provide a long term resolution that is fair for all sides."

"Since the CRB's March 2nd decision to dramatically and unfairly increase webcaster royalty rates, millions of Internet radio listeners, webcasters and artists have called on Congress to take action," said Jake Ward of the SaveNetRadio coalition. "Today Congress took notice, and we thank Mr. Inslee for leading the charge to save music diversity on the Internet."

Ward continued, "This bill is a critical step to preserve this vibrant and growing medium, and to develop a truly level playing field where webcasters can compete with satellite radio. The Internet Radio Equality Act is the last best hope webcasters, artists, and listeners have to keep the music playing."

Bill Goldsmith of RadioParadise said, "It's now time to step up our pressure on Congress -- specifically the House, at this point -- to address this issue quickly, hopefully before the new rates go into effect on May 1."

Tim Westergren of Pandora.com also issued a call to arms for webcasters and listeners. He claimed, "Following our outreach to Pandora listeners, every congressional office was flooded with constituent phone calls, emails and faxes - literally hundreds of thousands in just 5 days! The entire fax system on the Hill was brought to a standstill. We had to hand deliver the faxes!" Westergren echoed the challenge of contacting congresspeople to gain support for the the bill.

Many webcasters, including Goldsmith, Westergren, Soma.FM's Rusty Hodge and others plan to travel to Washington next week to lobby congresspeople themselves.

In recent months, SoundExchange has been waging a hard-fought war in their attempts to raise the rates to extreme levels. The group's front man, Jon Simson, has taken a 'let them eat cake' approach to the plight of webcasters, claiming that they could merely sell more advertising. "Webcasters have a number of opportunities to maximize revenue with ... banner ads, pop-ups, video pre-rolls, audio commercials," claimed Simson. If only it were that easy.

He went so far as to even trot out 'big name artists' who back their decision, people like Michelle Shocked, Twisted Sister's Jay Jay French and Big Star/Golden Smog drummer Jody Stephens. Okay, so they aren't big names, but seeing a renowed indie rocker (and self-described socialist) like Shocked on there is, well, rather shocking. At least we've got Bryan Adams and Talking Heads' David Byrne (a webcaster himself) on our side.

And in a rather sneaky move, Simson offered his own olive branch, claiming that SoundExchange is open to working with webcasters to cut their own deals. But this sounds a bit like cutting a deal with the devil. Soma.FM's Hodge fears that this could open the door to the recording industry to demand their own deals, namely forcing webcasters to play whatever less-than-desirable product they're trying to push down the public's throats, in exchange for relaxed royalty payments. Hodge calls this "Dark Payola," in that it's the opposite of payola but with all the effects. In other words, the RIAA has webcasting by the you-know-whats.

So, what can webcasters and listeners do to support this bill, and to stop this crazy thing perpetrated by the RIAA, SoundExchange and the CRB? Many of the grassroots efforts to fight the CRB ruling have been combined at SaveNetRadio.org, which has become a clearing house of information on the proposed royalty rates, and the damage it could do to a growing form of media. The group has pleaded with supporters to contact their representatives in Congress to help support the Internet Radio Equality Act. Webmasters and webcasters alike can go to their website to download banners and recorded PSA's to play on streams. In addition, Kurt Hanson's Radio and Internet Newsletter is the best resource on the internet for the latest on this issue. You can also find more links and resources on the right hand side of this site.

Next Tuesday, May 1, webcasters, musicians, independent record label personnel and others have planned a "Hill Walk" in Washington DC, where small groups of SaveNetRadio coalition members will spend the day going from Congressional office to Congressional office, meeting with members of Congress and their staffs. And on Tuesday May 8, many webcasters will go quiet in a "Day of Silence" to help draw attention to the issue.

LTR, a strong supporter of internet radio, wishes everyone involved in this the very best of luck.

The definitive Air America stream links list

Well, the dust has settled and the smoke has cleared since Air America Radio updated their webstreams. And LTR has finally figured the whole damn thing out.

Air America's most recent streaming woes were reported here back in March via this post and this post. What happened is that the network changed stream hosts, leading to a period of several week where many irate and confused listeners were trying to figure out why they could not get the direct streams to work. LTR came to the rescue with links to streams of various affiliates, and was able to list 1-3 separate stations for each. That problem has since been resolved, though there have been some recent reports of media player makers such as iTunes not updating their links. If that's still the case, you should be able to direct post the new stream links in each player and bookmark them.

What it boils down to is that Air America currently has two basic streams. There's one for Windows Media Player and an mp3 stream that works in Winamp, iTunes and RealPlayer, among others. You can access the stream of your choice at either of these two links:

Windows Media Player http://winmedia.voxcdn.net/aar

Winamp/iTunes/RealPlayer: http://aarlive.voxcdn.com/live.m3u

Now, bear in mind that these streams will open in whichever media player you have set as your default. For example, in my case, I have Winamp set as my all-around media player. The current incarnation of Winamp will play many Windows Media Player files, therefore, the WMP stream will open up Winamp. Same with the mp3 stream, which it always has. If you have iTunes or RealPlayer set as your default for mp3 streams, the mp3 stream will open in either one of those players. As far as I know, neither of these media players will play WMP streams. You may run into the same situation with Windows Media Player. If you need to set a default player, you can do that with the 'options' or 'preferences' tab in your player of choice. Got all that?

Air America also has a browser-based player, in case you prefer listening through your web browser or if you are unable to listen through a separate player.

Furthermore, on the left side of the page, where all the individual shows and timeslots are listed, there are other streams for each listed. I have left up the links to WWRL in New York, which airs most of the network's schedule, therefore serving as a pretty decent alternate. And there are a few other individual affiliate streams listed as well, just in case.

So, a typical listing on the left side of this page may look like this:

Lee Rayburn 9A-12P

Let's break it all down. First, there is a link to the host or show, in this case fill-in host Lee Rayburn, who is listed as the temporary host of the shift on Air America's site. Next is the time the show airs, eastern time zone. Following that are cute little icons, which , by clicking, will open up a direct webstream. First is a little . That denotes the browser-based Air America player. You can choose between the WMP or mp3 stream at that link. The next is the web-based browser for WWRL in New York. Following that are two Windows icons. The first is Air America's WMP stream, which will open in a separate media player, followed by another for WWRL, which does likewise.

The next icon is , which denotes an mp3 stream that can be opened up in most media players, including Winamp, iTunes and RealPlayer. The next is a radio station webstream, this one for the browser-based player for KEUN in Lafayette, LA. And finally, there's a , which denotes a podcast feed for those of you unable to listen live and wish to tune in later. Now, in this particular case, this podcast link may be outdated, but most of the other ones should still be active. Some hosts archive their shows on their websites, and that will be denoted. Also, many of Air America's feeds are subscription-based, so the link will direct you to their site for downloading information. Same with the Nova M Radio shows like Mike Malloy. I'll go through this weekend and update all of these.

So there ya go. All you ever needed to know about how to listen to Air America and other progressive talk programming on the internets. Cool, huh? If you have any questions, concerns, corrections or other updates, then go right ahead and post them in comments below.

Attack of the Music Mafia

“The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There’s also a negative side.” - Hunter S. Thompson

More and more people are listening to online radio these days, with overall listening time per person coming close to equaling that of terrestrial radio. Music aficionados are enjoying the eclectic and distinct genres that they can access with the simple click of a mouse. Listeners can also tune in terrestrial radio stations from other cities, in case they feel the KISS-FM in Chicago is better than the one in L.A. or Dallas. For many fans, this is about as close to heaven on earth as they can get. The ability to have so many listening choices at one's disposal was likely once a whacked-out dream inside someone's head. And with the growth of WiFi and portable technology, webcasting could someday go wherever we go.

But, things can't ever possibly be this good. A dark cloud looms over the horizon. Soon, music fans could be deprived of the rich sounds and wildly varied styles and genres of music coming through their computer speakers. They could be without the bossa nova, lounge and other forms of exotic content provided by LuxuriaMusic. Or the not-too-commercial content of FolkAlley. Or the deep selection of 80s new wave hits served up by Java Jane. Yes, this burgeoning media form could come to a grinding halt soon, if lawyers and lobbyists in Washington, DC get their way.

Even acclaimed non-commercial stations like WXPN and KCRW could shut down their webstreams. Heck, so could the big commercial guns like Clear Channel!

This is not a veiled threat. This is real. And it could very well happen.

SoundExchange, the D.C.-based trade organization (and arm of the Recording Industry Association of America) that collects and distributes royalties, half to artists and half to record labels, is advocating for an increase in the amount of royalties that webcasters, satellite radio providers and other forms of modern technology broadcasters pay. After all, if licensing firms such as ASCAP, BMI and SESAC can collect song publishing royalties from broadcasters, satcasters, webcasters and whoever else, why can't they? But at least the music publishers are reasonable. If SoundExchange gets their way, royalties paid by webcasters to the recording industry will more than double, in addition to a $500 per channel per year fee. If this gets the go-ahead by the Copyright Royalty Board, and it possibly could, the very small hobby webcasters will be pushed out of business. Even multi-stream providers such as Pandora and Live365 will be bankrupted.

Terrestrial radio broadcasters are grandfathered in, and thus excluded from this money grab (though they pay royalties to ASCAP and BMI). They're not required to pay the RIAA-mandated royalties, unless they themselves stream their content over the web. But if SoundExchange gets their way, they too may have to cough up money. If that happens, well, I hope you really like talk radio.

And if you're one of the roughly 30 million people in the United States who listens to internet radio and are looking for sympathy and compassion from the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) or SoundExchange, well, don't hold your breath.

In fact, John Simson, executive director of SoundExchange, relishes the idea of paring down the webcast field, if it's beneficial to the artists.

"Is 10,000 stations the right number?" he asks. "Does having so many Web stations disperse the market so much that it hurts the artist? What's the right
number of stations? Is it 5,000? Is it less? Are artists better off having hundreds of listeners on lots of little stations, or thousands of listeners on larger stations?"

And if your webcast is a non-commercial hobby, well, find a new hobby. Simson says small operators who play music and don't try to sell ads "will have a hard time paying the rate" -- a change about which he's not shedding tears. Of course, he's living in a bit of a fantasy world, as webcast advertising is really in its infancy, and the vast majority of streaming stations are basically worth no more that the equipment they use. After all, AccuRadio is not AOL.

Many see a Utopian model where webcasting, like terrestrial radio, can work with the music cartel in a collaborative fashion. Meaning that the music getting airplay serves as promotion for the industry's goods, resulting in increased sales. Heck, the labels don't even have to bribe them to play their music! It would be a perfect world. Too bad the world really isn't perfect.

"The attitude that really has to change is the idea that the people playing this music on the Web are somehow doing artists a favor," Simson says. Artists want their music to be heard, of course, and the industry likes the concept of Web radio, but Simson rejects the concept that small webcasters are doing artists a favor by giving them exposure. He wants blood. And it doesn't matter how they get it.

Simson and his ilk are basically empty suits - lobbyists and lawyers doing the bidding of the RIAA (though they claim they are currently independent of them). Most of these goons aren't really true artists (though Simson did try to make it in the 70s as a singer/songwriter before chucking the dream and going to law school). They probably don't really care if musicians get paid or not. Most likely, they probably don't really care about music in general, as their minds have become clouded by figures and retainer fees. These people represent the dark, extremist side of the Music Mafia, the supercharged id of the industry psyche.

The music cartel thrives on control. And the very nature of the internet gives way too much power to the fans, power that the industry just doesn't want to fully cede. They'd much rather decide what we listen to, rather than us going out and discovering music that we might like better. The peer-to-peer file sharing boom earlier in the decade scared the bejeezus out of them. Sure, illicit file sharing is wrong on many levels, but this practice made the cartel paranoid of virtually anything on the internet controlled by parties outside their system of control. And that includes webcasting.

Just to warn you all, I'll be making much mention of file sharing, as it has been the 800lb. gorilla in the room throughout this rocky relationship between music and technology, and an example of how the industry dropped the ball with something that could have benefited them. But it most certainly has very little to do with the practice of webcasting. Although the industry has connected the two in the past, streaming music programming over the internet is really no different than terrestrial radio, only it's nature lends itself to niche programming and a more personal feel than corporate-owned radio. And it is definitely much more legit than music file sharing. Artists had every right to be hostile toward the likes of Napster, Kazaa and Grokster (though Metallica screwed the pooch in their poorly received response to it), but I'm sure all of them wholeheartedly approve of and support independent webcasting. In addition, many of them actually want to work with those nefarious peer-to-peer operators to legitimize their efforts and actually help the artists promote their works, while at the same time respecting their rights. But the music cartel, for the most part, is very timid.

(My son) kept saying it was wrong to steal the music (downloading from Napster)... (I said) If he wants to fight for my rights he could call up BMI and ask them why my broadcast-related payments were so low during the years The Who were in the top 10 AOR playlists. He might ask them why during the 1989 Who tour, when we paid a huge sum of money to BMI for the right to perform songs I had written, they eventually paid me (after a lot of complaining from my manager) a tiny portion of that sum, excusing themselves because their main payout area that year was Nashville. - Pete Townshend

Now, getting money to the very people who create the music is one thing. Only thing is, SoundExchange has had pretty mixed results in their distribution efforts. Last year, they posted a list of artists that have unclaimed royalties, giving a December 15 deadline to claim or forfeit. And who gets that forfeited money? Gee, one can only guess. Though, how hard could it be to find the Mormon Tabernacle Choir? Here's a hint: they're in Utah. Or the Chicago Community Choir? The list is utterly hysterical. How about Clayton and Mullen? You know, the guys who did the theme for the first Mission:Impossible movie? Remember them? Hmm... I wonder where they are now. Well, it certainly can't be too difficult to find the rhythm section from U2! Ace Frehley? SoundExchange must think the former KISS guitarist is living under a bridge or something (oh wait - that's Peter Criss). Or, I wonder if New Kids on the Block know that they had money coming their way? Well, they'd have to look under 'M', since it's spelled "Mew Kids on the Block." Hey, isn't that Coolio on the list too? Or, speaking of washed-up 90s acts, how 'bout Gerardo, a.k.a. the "Rico Suave" guy? Well, he shouldn't be that tough to find. He's currently a friggin' record label exec for Interscope, part of one of the Big Four labels! As for any of the other artists on the list, I'm sure anyone with half a brain in their heads could go online and find contact information for many of them in mere minutes. No wonder why a budding competitor, the more reasonable Royalty Logic, is fighting against their questionable tactics. Of course, SoundExchange used their government clout to stick it to their budding rival.

"In a game where the ‘other' guys in suits and ties and 4 super-corporations control the bottom line in this culture, my stance is to dismantle that dominance and add parity across the board. The lawyers and accountants who've assumed the exec positions stand to lose the most when that happens." - Chuck D

So, am I advocating that artists should go pound sand and be thankful that they get any airplay at all? Absolutely not. But the recording industry should realize that, as hard as they try, they cannot work against technology. It didnt' work with the sheet music publishers and their wars with radio in the 1920s and 1930s. It didn't work with recordable tape and the rise of FM radio. And it didn't work with digitally compressed audio files and the internet. What did happen in every case is that the technology helped them grow even more. Even today, the recording industry is starting to make money via legitimate digital distribution of their music via iTunes and the like (and it took someone with the clout of Steve Jobs to finally make it work), after the fizzling of half-assed industry-controlled efforts such as MusicNet and PressPlay. Illicit downloading, believe it or not, may have actually helped them, as albums from Radiohead, Eminem and Coldplay shot to the top of the charts even after being fully leaked in advance online.

"In Mozart's time, word of mouth built an audience. People found him and heard him play. Then someone came along and said, 'We can sell this experience.' Right there, you've got trouble. Music comes from the spirit, but where does the guy selling the music come from?" - Prince

The music industry and its lobbyists and lawyers have to realize that new media (as in satellite radio and webcasting) is really helping them stay alive. Here are ten suggestions for the recording industry on how all parties involved can coexist:

1. Just like radio airplay, webcasting, satellite, Muzak and whatever other distribution technologies out there can actually help promote your stuff. And they can help sell it. Heck, AccuRadio, with 20,000 listeners at a time tuning in to 320 different music streams, claims that they help to sell $40,000 worth of CDs per month via direct links to Amazon.com. But with over 300 streams, the new rates will drive them out of business. Is this what they really want? Record labels have had no qualms in the past actually bribing stations to play their useless crap, so why take it out on the little guy who actually wants to play it? And it won't cost the labels baggies of weed, suitcases full of cash or hookers to do it. Tell the lobbyists to be reasonable about this whole royalty business and stop being so anal about it. The money will come. Trust me.

2. Recording industry lobbyists such as Simson claim that the music on webstreams are 'perfect digital copies.' That's nonsense. Music on webstreams is highly compressed and non-lossless. Meaning that they are degraded. Most webcast at rates of 128K or lower, in various streaming formats. That's roughly the equivalent of FM, without the excess compression and occasional static. The closest one could get to CD quality would be at a rate of 320K, which has minor degradation. But very, very few stream over 128K, due to exhorbitant cost of bandwidth and the inability for most people to listen to it. Again, webcasting is not the same as file sharing. Far from it.

3. The RIAA claims that people can 'rip' streams and make their own digital copies with widely available software. This is true, but the rips are still highly degraded. And doing this just to get a few individual songs is a real pain in the ass. I've never heard of anyone doing this. Besides, it's just as easy to record off the air (maybe even easier) to your computer with an external FM radio and an inexpensive connector plug from Radio Shack, if someone really had the time and energy to do that.

4. Choking legitimate royalty-paying webcasters out of business will jump back to bite the music industry in the ass. These are the ones who go out of their way to support you, via 'buy' links on their site where someone can actually buy the song they're hearing with a mere click. Getting rid of the webcasters who are succombing to your extortive tactics will only open the door wider to lower-tech 'pirate' webcasters who don't pay royalties. Think these people are going to put 'buy links' on their site for people to purchase the stuff they play? Think again.

5. The music industry also has to realize that most webcasters out there aren't in it to become zillionaires. The webcasters realize this. They do it as a labor of love, and some, like Bill Goldsmith of Radio Paradise can scrape a living out of it, all the while paying his royalties. And revenue streams for webcasters are far from becoming reality. Most webcasters spend more money than they make, but they do it because they believe in it. They're looking to support their favorite artists, not exploit them. This isn't the same as peer-to-peer providers like Kazaa selling advertising and spyware on their heavily-trafficked sites and services and pocketing all the loot. Music execs are more likely to rip off their artists than webcasters are. And they have.

"They wouldn't recognise art or artistic integrity if they bounded over and bit them on the arse... The real truth is that record companies have been screwing the public for years and they're now terrified that they might lose the odd dollar here and there." - Dunstan Bruce, Chumbawamba

6. The availability of online music, whether it be in webcasting, legitimate and illegitimate downloading or on-demand streaming is not what's really hurting the music cartel's bottom line. Sure, they're groaning about that 20% loss in sales over the past year, but have any of these people really looked to see what could be the real root of the problem? After all, the movie industry, also waging their own war against internet piracy, experienced a 5% increase in business in 2006, despite $10 tickets and $7 buckets of popcorn. Rather than blame everyone else, has the music industry taken into account other factors such as the increased competition from other media, including the widespread success of the DVD format for movies? Or the pricey video games available for all those gaming consoles (with several high-profile system launches in the past year)? Lots of stuff out there competing for that same dollar. Or the rise in sanctioned downloads from services such as iTunes? How about the tight playlists that dominate our corporate airwaves, depriving listeners of hearing talented artists rather than the current 'flavor of the month'? Or have they taken a look in the mirror at the very product they're pushing? There's lots of good music out there, but they seem content at merely pushing the mass-appeal mediocrity that they think is an easier sell. Blaming it all on the internet is short-sighted. And if new media is hurting your bottom line, perhaps you should learn how to take advantage of the vast marketing opportunities available with it and stop trying to fight technology. Remember, technology will always win.

"As the technology changes and the distribution channels evolve, artists are going to become free," Clint Black

7. Take care of your own. People have to wonder if your aim to collect royalties for deserving artists is true when the artists themselves are getting burned on expected royalties. Take the Bay City Rollers (...please!). They were pretty big in the 70s, and sold roughly 70 million units sold around the world. Yet all they've gotten in royalties in the past 25 years is a measly $254,000. Tsk, tsk. Or the Chambers Brothers. They released a bunch of records but scored only one real hit. And what a hit it was. "Time Has Come Today," written by Joe and Willie Chambers themselves, still gets tons of airplay, has been used in over 30 films, included on at least 125 compliations and even used in commercials. Yet, they haven't gotten a penny for it, or anything else they recorded in the 60s and 70s either. Is this how you take care of your own? Where does all this royalty money go anyway? We hear so many horror stories of artists getting screwed out of their money by unscrupulous execs, to the point that some of the very same people who built the business through their hard work died penniless through record company incompetence. Rhythm and blues pioneer LaVern Baker was still performing to her dying day while in a wheelchair with both of her legs amputated due to diabetes. Why? She needed the money for her artificial legs. Funny, I've never heard of a record exec falling on hard times. The industry screaming about webcasting cheating deserving artists is utter hypocrisy! So walk your talk. Practice what you preach. If it is indeed the artists' money, give it to them. And that means the money you stole from them too.

And if the recording industry is so concerned about the plight of the artists, allow the many musicians out there to be able to participate in the same health plans and perks that RIAA and label staffers have access to. NARAS, another music industry trade concern and host of the Grammy Awards, provided their former president Michael Green with a million dollar country club membership, a Mercedes and hush money for a sexual harassment suit. Musician Victoria Williams couldn't even get medical treatment for multple sclerosis on her own.

"The RIAA represents the interests of the majors. The interests of the majors are contrary to the interests of artists. The RIAA does not represent the interests of artists, and to suggest this is fundamentally dishonest." - Robert Fripp

8. The music industry will not gain much sympathy by alienating the people who support it most. Meaning people who listen to and buy your products. Calling your supporters thieves and slapping lawsuits on them will not endear them to you. Neither will cutting off their favorite listening options (i.e. webcasts) or inconveniencing them. And certainly not filing lawsuits against stroke victims and 7-year olds. Stop telling kids to drop out of college so they get a McJob and send you $3,000 or whatever you claim they owe you. And the 'settle-o-matic' feature on your website for the guilt-ridden and paranoid downloading crowd is piling it on a bit thick, don't you think? Let's face it, none of that money will ever see the hands of the artists whose music was snagged. Piss off your supporters (aka music fans) even more and they might do something rash, like form really bad opinions of you, boycott you, or even worse - ask questions you don't want to answer, such as why your artists only make less than a buck on their CD that sells for $15-18. Shaking down your fans is a big, big mistake.

"Record companies as we know them will soon be gone. There are too many other ways to distribute music, and once those are established there will be no place for record companies and their pigeonholes. They can take that as a threat if they like. It will be a big change. But as an artist I love change. Who needs ‘em?" - Keith Richards

9. Let go. Stop trying to be the gatekeeper to the entire music universe. I doubt this whole charade really has much to do with artist royalties. The labels have been shafting artists for decades. Rather it's a method of control. The industry wants to be the ones to decide who makes it and who doesn't, in order to target their cashflow and give the beancounters and shareholders something to wrap their minds around. They want all the power, and the ability to decide who gets airplay and promotion and who doesn't. With only a select number of radio station owners out there, and a heavy reliance on corporate-mandated playlists, this makes promotion very easy. Much more simplistic to shove bland, shitty mass appeal bands like Nickelback and Hinder down everyone's throats than Bright Eyes, who has recently garnered quite a bit of attention and rave reviews despite little mainstream airplay (except for non-commercial radio and webcasting) and being distributed by a small independent label out of Omaha.

But that would be too complicated for the industry. Much easier to promote and market what they know - crass, predictable crap. Like the Pussycat Dolls, a Las Vegas burlesque troupe who are in a rather unique situation - they are record company employees! Yes, you read that right. Rather than being 'works for hire' or indentured servants like every other act out there, they were hired and are employed by Interscope, meaning that the image, songs, musicians, videos, promotion, etc. are provided by the label, and all the girls have to do is show up in the studio, on the video set, on stage and to the reality show (yes, the reality show). Well, two out of three ain't bad. Supposedly, it's only one girl singing lead and backup on all the songs on their record (though two more out of the remaining five are given credit for backup vocals). Have we learned nothing from the whole Milli Vanilli fiasco? They also market this group heavily toward young girls, going so far to team with Hasbro to produce a toy line. Hmm... Las Vegas burlesque marketed to 11-year olds? Is this where they got the idea? But that's another rant for another time.

The labels are killing themselves with their increased reliance on mass appeal mediocrity. Think of it this way: In 25 years, who's going to be elected into the Rock n' Roll Hall of Fame? Certainly not Justin Timberlake. The innovative artists are the ones on the ground trying to do it themselves. Heck, there could be another Led Zeppelin out there, waiting for their big break. And likely, in the modern day environment, with the RIAA holding the keys to the gate, controlling distribution, support and radio airplay, it will never happen. And they're still a bit uncomfortable with fan-driven webcasters and sites like Myspace taking matters into their own hands. That's a chink in their armour! An affront to their authority!

"Somewhere along the way, record companies figured out that it's a lot more profitable to control the distribution system than it is to nurture artists. And since the companies didn't have any real competition, artists had no other place to go. Record companies controlled the promotion and marketing; only they had the ability to get lots of radio play, and get records into all the big chain store. That power put them above both the artists and the audience. They own the plantation." - Courtney Love

10. If you don't do it, someone else will. There's a reason Prince left Warner Brothers, Garth Brooks left Capitol and Public Enemy left Def Jam to strike out on their own. And there's a reason Ani DiFranco shunned the major labels and currently enjoys complete artistic freedom and over $4 per album in royalties by distributing her own music. Just last week, Paul McCartney, perhaps the most famous musician still alive, left EMI after more than four decades, even turning down a reported £25 million advance (or $49 million - like he needs the money!), to sign with Starbucks' upstart independent label, because he felt they could more effectively promote his new music. Yes, that Starbucks. It's about control. It's about freeing themselves from restrictive indentured servitude contracts. It's about determining their own destiny, outside of the Big Four. It's about trusting their destiny to a company that actually cares about promoting their new product.

Today, there are many more avenues available to artists that didn't exist in the past. No longer do major labels and corporate-controlled radio stations have to get involved. Artists and independent labels can simply cut out the middle man, by going to independent webcasters and sites like Myspace and Last.fm. The extremely talented Terra Naomi scored a major label deal with Island Records via a widely seen homemade music video on YouTube. These are more direct grassroots marketing channels that artists can utilize themselves, meaning less control for the music mafia. They're being rendered obsolete. No wonder why the industry is so timid of the internet!

Here's what can happen if the major labels just open their minds and support new media. A Chicago band, OK Go, was sitting on an album that was getting virtually no attention. Unimpressed with the predictable promotional efforts of their label, Capitol Records, they created a silly music video in their backyard for one of their songs as a joke (at a cost of roughly $5), emailing it to friends and acquaintances while never really intending to officially release it. Capitol could have sued for many, many copyright violations when the video spread and became a massive success on YouTube. Or they could have put their foot down when the band started handing out homemade DVDs featuring the video at their shows. Instead, figuring they really had nothing to lose anyway, Capitol stepped aside and just supported the band's efforts. OK Go got even more creative, shot another low-budget homemade video (this one intentional) and uploaded it to YouTube, without the knowledge or consent of the label. The result? "Here It Goes Again", another hilarious effort featuring a single long take and a choreographed routine on treadmills, was a web phenomenon, viewed over 13 million times on YouTube alone. It also won a Grammy for Best Video and resulted in a sales spike of 180% and widespread airplay for a year-old album, a very rare feat. To their credit, the Capitol brass gave in, let the band to their thing and even supported it, going so far as to allow the music on a medium they loathe - on-demand internet access. Yes, this stuff does work. The internet is a powerful tool that can be utilized to give a much-needed shot in the arm to a sagging music industry. This is even bigger than MTV! Killing the goose that laid the golden egg is sheer lunacy.

Major labels aren’t going away, but until they figure out how to lead the Internet rather than chase it, the mainstream music scene is destined to just get even duller and safer than it already is. - John Flansburgh of They Might Be Giants

So, what can we as the general public do to save internet radio? Well, fighting the music industry lobby and the politicians they have sucking at their hind teats is intimidating, but it can be done. You can go to this link at Congress.org, copy the text letter there and by just entering your zip code you can send the letter directly to your congresspeople. You can also find more information about the Music Mafia shakedown of the internet at these sites:

Save Our Internet Radio
Save the Streams - includes petition
Kurt Hanson's Radio and Internet Newsletter
Another petition

Or you could even let the SoundExchange shakedown artists themselves know how you feel about their fatwa on webstreaming and other heavy-handed tactics. You can email Simson here and contact the rest via this web page.

And yes, the Music Mafia and new media can coexist. And flourish. If only they stop fearing it and stop trying to kill it. And work with the public, rather than against it.

Webcasters, broadcasters fight for internet radio

Not only are internet webcasters up in arms over planned royalty fee increases for online music streamers, but traditional broadcast concerns are fighting the ruling as well.

Lawyers for National Public Radio (NPR) and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) are in Washington this week, planning legal action aimed at overturning a ruling from US Copyright Royalty Judges which raised royalty fees for webcasters high enough for some to predict the demise of Internet radio.

"Right now the thought is that the initial response needs to be a legal response," General Manager Roger LaMay, of NPR affiliate WXPN, told internetnews.com. WXPN is a non-commercial member-supported radio service of the University of Pennsylvania, and programs an innovative music-heavy format.

"If this were to go into effect it's going to have public radio stations looking for ways to cut back what we do, as opposed to expanding. Now, there is significant dis-incentive when you're talking about services that are committed to public service," LaMay said.

Commercial Internet radio broadcasters were equally upset. "Left unchanged, these rates would be disastrous. It will not only end Internet radio, but will also stifle innovation as entrepreneurs and investors will abandon this space - leaving a vacuum that will be quickly filled by illegal unlicensed services with no intention of creating legitimate businesses," a spokesperson for commercial webcaster Pandora said in an email. Pandora founder Tim Westergren said his company plans to follow NPR and CPB into court.

Willem Dicke, a spokesperson for SoundExchange, was on the defensive. "We're all fans of Internet radio. We don't want to see Internet radio go away. These are negotiations. We're not trying to stick it to anybody. In terms of what happens next? Either side could appeal to the U.S. District court," Dicke told internetnews.com.

LaMay claims that the proposed rate hike will hurt independent musicians, who rely on Internet radio to expose their music, the most.

That's not SoundExchange's goal, Dicke said. "We just want them to play fairly when they use the work of musicians and artists and ultimately the market place is going to determine who succeeds and who doesn't." Dicke said.

"There's nobody in public radio that's making money overall on their [Web] streams," LaMay said, "We're doing them because we think it's the right thing to do."

You can read the rest at Internetnews.com.

RIAA trying to kill internet radio

Faithful readers of LTR know that this blog does not necessarily limit itself to liberal and progressive talk radio. Quite often, the worlds of independent media and emerging technology are covered here, as these often have much to do with the ability of the general public to be able to become a part of the overall media process. Unfortunately, independent internet radio as we know it may be in danger, following a ruling on Friday, and this development could affect the creation and development of new media.

In a move that could potentially cripple small and medium-sized internet radio services immensely, the Copyright Royalty Board (CRB) on Friday made a decision on Internet radio royalty rates, rejecting all of the arguments made by webcasters and instead adopting the "per play" rate proposal put forth by SoundExchange, the digital music fee collection arm of the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). In short, this move could kill webcasting as we know it.

Further adding insult to injury, the rates will be retroactive to the beginning of 2006, and will be significantly higher than laid out in a similar May 2002 royalty edict (the CARP ruling). And these new rates will increase drastically from year to year.

The new rates are as follows:

2006	$.0008 per performance
2007	$.0011 per performance
2008	$.0014 per performance
2009	$.0018 per performance
2010	$.0019 per performance

A "performance" is defined as the streaming of one song to one listener; thus a station that has an average audience of 500 listeners racks up 500 "performances" for each song it plays.

The minimum license fee is $500 per channel per year. There is no clear definition of what a 'channel' is for services that make up individualized playlists for listeners. For noncommercial webcasters, the fee will be $500 per channel, for up to 159,140 ATH (aggregate tuning hours) per month. They would pay the commercial rate for all transmissions above that number.

Participants are granted a 15 day period wherein they have the opportunity to ask the CRB for a re-hearing. Following that will be the usual back-and-forth before it could become official.

So, what does this all mean to you and I? Well, if you enjoy listening to music on internet radio, your favorite online station could shut down. The big guns of streaming audio, Microsoft, Yahoo and AOL, could withstand this, since streaming is only a minor part of their massive business interests. The next tier, which would include services like Live365, will feel a serious pinch. And many well-revered services, such as SomaFM, Radioio and Radio Paradise, may be kaput. Or they may go the KPIG route and start charging subscription rates to hear their stream (they have since ditched this model). The next level down are the small hobbyists with Shoutcast or Live365 streams. If they're running a legit operation (i.e. forking over royalty fees to the RIAA), chances are they won't be able to weather the change. They'll either shut down or go underground. Or limit their playlists to non-RIAA material, which will effectively limit what they can put on the 'air'.

And while some of these webcasters rely on donations or advertising to help offset expenses such as equipment, bandwidth, etc., they are far from massive profitable enterprises. Many of them are hobbyists, doing it as a labor of love, such as Bill Goldsmith, who runs Radio Paradise with his wife and stepson. The station is a non-profit small business, and is a full-time job. He doesn't expect to get rich off it, but he is living the American dream of making a living doing something he loves. What kind of impact will the new rates have on Goldsmith and other independent webcasters? Well, they'll effectively run them all out of business.

Goldsmith sees the whole system as highly unfair, in that the RIAA, representing the 'Big 5' record companies, extracts so much money from webcasters, while collecting nothing from owners of terrestrial radio stations. Yes, you read that right - companies such as Clear Channel and CBS pay nothing to the RIAA. In fact, record labels will sometimes illegally pay station owners such as Entercom and Citadel to air their music, as the most recent payola scandals that rocked the industry showed.

The RIAA's argument for demanding fees from webcasters rather than terrestrial providers is that webcast stations are merely providing "perfect digital copies" of individual songs to listeners, rather than creating traditional radio programming. Goldsmith thinks this is hogwash, and it most certainly is. Nobody with even a limited knowledge of computers can say that a song on a webstream is a 'perfect digital copy', unless they're streaming at a 14,400kbps rate, which would be highly impractical. Most stream anywhere from 64-128kbps, a highly compressed rate.

The new rates could easily eat up roughly 125% of Radio Paradise's income, according to Goldsmith. And he feels his hands are tied, as the recording industry and Congress are ignoring the plight of small webcasters.

SomaFM, a highly popular webcaster with multiple streams dedicated to electronic, ambient, lounge and alternative country music, had already run into problems with the RIAA's heavy-handed ways. Following the 2002 CARP ruling, the webcaster was effectively forced to shut down temporarily, since they could not handle a $15,000 per month royalty bill. SomaFM's owner, Rusty Hodges organized a letter-writing campaign and even testified before Congress. The grassroots effort persuaded Congress to pass the Small Broadcasters Amendment Act, which enabled SomaFM and others to negotiate a more reasonable rate with the RIAA and return to webcasting. SomaFM and Radio Paradise, among others, currently pay roughly 12% of income to the RIAA.

The RIAA has long had an uncomfortable relationship with the internet. Since the peak of Napster and other file sharing organizations, the RIAA has virtually declared war againts these companies and even engaged in what some would call 'Gestapo-like tactics' in going after people suspected of downloading music via file sharing. They have tried to sue children, dead peoples' families, the terminally ill and even an 83-year old woman they suspected of downloading rap music. Granted, the makers and distributors of music do deserve to get paid on it, but heavy-handed tactics such as this have alienated the recording industry from the many people who have supported them in the past. Even former RIAA head Hilary Rosen, vilified by many in the peer-to-peer file sharing community, feels that the hardline tactics of the RIAA have been counter-productive. She feels the time is right for the RIAA to work with new technology in a more positive fashion.

So, the question deserves to be asked. Who gets the money collected from webcasters? If you guess that the beneficiaries are the artists themselves, you are grossly mistaken. Any money collected from royalty fees go directly to the RIAA and the record companies, further feeding the beast. Lobbying's hard work, after all.

Now, lest anyone get the wrong idea from this posting, nobody is demanding that the RIAA get stiffed on any money owed. Rather, it is a call for rational thought, in creating a system that is fair to all, including both webcasters and terrestrial broadcasters. And an effort to save a highly valuable medium that enables the population at large to become a larger presence in the media, something that is extremely important in this day and age. This new iron-fist tactic seems designed to enable an organization such as the RIAA, which represents the major recording conglomerates, to dictate who is allowed to deliver the content. And it is highly unfair. In short, the RIAA is shooting itself in the foot by bullying organizations that could help pad their bottom line in a considerable way.

And if the new royalty rates go into effect, the world of internet radio could resemble terrestrial radio. Only, instead of being dominated by the likes of Clear Channel, CBS, Entercom and Citadel, will be dominated by AOL, Apple, Microsoft, Yahoo and others, with the little guy once again squeezed out. Instead of breaking truly innovative artists who happen to be toiling away at major labels, webcasting fans will yet again have the not-so-talented likes of Jessica Simpson, Nickleback, the Pussycat Dolls and various other flavors of the week shoved down their throats. For this to happen to webcasting would be an absolute travesty. The recording industry has already helped to destroy terrestrial radio. Don't let them do it to internet radio, and don't let them try to single-handedly wipe out an entire class of small business.

You can find out more at Save Our Internet Radio, a new site started by Goldsmith, or Save The Streams, a similar site. For further reading, check out Gizmodo's Anti-RIAA Manifesto, the International Webcasting Association, and Kurt Hanson's excellent Radio And Internet Newsletter. There is also a petition that will be submitted to Congressional representatives, pleading to "please keep internet radio alive."

Radiopower.org signing off

Shelby LaPre, founder and owner of Radiopower.org, announced today that they will fold the online streaming service. The end will come January 7, 2007, just two days after the five year anniversary of the service.

"We have been struggling topay our bills for a while but it meant something to me to reach this milestonebefore we make as graceful an exit as possible. Now, alas, we've run out of resources to operate on, so the time has come," LaPre said on a message posted on the organization's website.

"These were some of the best years of my creative life. Every day brought some new challenge and reward. Thenetwork was growing at a rate of 20% per month! and seemed as thoughit would never end. Then came, Air America.

"RadioPower was more than just another network, it was born of my vision that someday people could communicate without any assistance or influence fromgovernments or corporations. We managed to operate for 5 years from listener donations, reaching on average between 2.5 and 3 million listeners per month with our music and talk radio streams. Many of our listeners experienced music and points of view that they had never experienced before. I know this because many of our extended family have taken the time to send us an email and thank us for the experience. This of course in turn supported the artist's exposure and contributed to making more people aware of their talents. As an artist this is my personal satisfaction, to know that we did in fact help spread new and different voices, views, ideas, and genuine expressions.

"Perhaps we were slightly ahead of our time."

In addition to syndicated progressive talk from the likes of Thom Hartmann, The Young Turks, Jeff Alan Wolf and Peter Werbe, Radiopower also programmed three music streams, dedicated to electronica, blues and punk rock.

You can read more of LaPre's farewell statement, in addition to ruminations on the future of webcasting, problems with corporate control of our society, and the trials and tribulations of running four webcast streams at Radiopower.org or at OpEd News.

Air America Radio maintains strong Webcast presence

Even as smarmy, uninformed right-wing bloggers are foaming at the mouth waiting for Air America Radio to go belly-up, and even mainstream news sources (hello, NY Daily News!) can't get their fact straight, recent webcast ratings give the upstart network some good news.

Webcast Metrics, a firm that tracks internet listening habits, has released its "Internet Radio Top 20" rankings of the top audio streaming services on the internet, for the month of July 2006.

In the current ratings, Air America Radio finishes at #12 overall from 6AM-Midnight, and #11 from 6AM-8PM. The rankings are computed by AQH (Average Quarter Hour), meaning how many listeners are tuned in for at least five minutes in any 15 minute period. Rankings are not computed by total cume (total amount of listeners in any given time period), due to issues in computing the numbers. If this were the case, AAR would rank at roughly #8 or #9. Still, the nature of webcasting is probably more accurate than Arbitron ratings for terrestrial radio.

It should be noted that many of the services ranked have multiple channels with full-time programming. The only single-stream service that ranks higher than Air America is ESPN Radio.

Here's how they stacked up, from 6AM-Midnight:

1. Digitally Imported (Electronic/Dance)
2. AccuRadio (Multiple formats)
3. 1.FM (Multiple formats)
4. 202.fm (Multiple formats)
5. Club977 (Multiple formats)
6. ABC Radio Group (Multiple formats)
7. RadioIO (Multiple formats)
8. Big R Radio (Multiple formats)
9. ESPN Radio (Sports Talk)
10. EMF Broadcasting (Multiple religious formats)
11. Soma.FM (Electronic/Dance)
12. Air America Radio (Political talk)
13. WNYC (Public Radio)
14. Beethoven.com (Classical music)
15. GotRadio.com (Multiple Formats)
16. BoomerRadio.com (Multiple Formats)
17. WFUV (Public Radio)
18. Saga Networks (radio station group)
19. WOXY.com (two alternative rock streams)
20. KPLU (puclic radio)

On a side note, WOXY was ranked #19 on the list. Unfortunately, this great station turned off its webstream last week as it was unable to generate enough revenue to continue. My condolences to the legendary WOXY.com and its faithful listeners. As Dustin Hoffman said in Rain Man, "97X -BAM! The Future Of Rock & Roll".

You can see Kurt Hanson's report on the July rankings here, or go directly to the Webcast Metrics site.

And finally, it should be noted that the numbers provided are for the official Air America streams only. They do not include the webstreams of individual affiliates, which make up a sizeable percentage of online listening.

Good news for webcasting: ASCAP negotiates new deal with stations

This cleans up an old deal from a few years ago that threatened to kill webcasting, and prevent the new medium from becoming a force.

The whole licensing thing is still pretty screwed up and prevents a lot of great broadcasters from streaming their programming over the web. Hopefully, this is a step in the right direction.

Web radio gets $1.7 billion boost

The American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers announced Monday that it has reached a $1.7 billion deal with the Radio Music License Committee to let stations legally stream their on-air content over the Internet.

With the deal, the radio group said, its 12,000 member stations gain the right to program ASCAP-regulated music online simultaneously with their on-air signals. The two industry groups labeled the agreement as the largest licensing deal in the history of American radio.

(snip)

The groups said the agreement includes retroactive licensing fees for the years 2001 to 2003 and establishes a new guideline to be followed from 2004 until 2009. The deal replaces an existing system of revenue-based licensing fees with a royalties schedule for stations that will stream significant amounts of ASCAP-controlled content.

Like I said, it's confusing, especially when you factor in the RIAA's fingers in the webcasting pie. But at least things are cleaned up a bit with ASCAP. Hopefully, this will help boost webcasting as a whole. It would be nice to get real variety on the radio, especially with the coming of improved wireless capability.

Here's a little about a webcaster that was almost killed by ridiculous licensing:

http://www.somafm.com/about/