This is really sad news. And not just because it means my mix isn't up any
more ;) I don't know how many records I have bought after hearing them on
mixes online, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's into triple figures.
Ironically, these fees are supposed to protect the artist, but it seems to
me it's as wrongheaded as the musicians union's old campaign to "keep music
live".
Quite a few people on this list run their own labels, and I'd be interested
in whether they think they earn more from ASCAP and BMI fees than sales
prompted by internet broadcasting in it's myriad forms. Obviously those
sales are a hard thing to quantify but ask how many sites can afford those
fees of over $1000 a year? And of those that can, how many are going to be
playing obscure music released on labels that, at best, can be said to form
a cottage industry and are, more frequently, a labour of love? Not many, I'd
imagine.
See what you can do at http://saveinternetradio.org
Jonny
> Unfortunately due to the pending issues with webcasting lincensing,
> Underground Committee is forced to pull all streams from it's site.
>
> Underound Committee is an independent organization who set out to give you
> quality Underground Music, thats all gone now. We can't afford the fees.
It
> all started with BMI. After numerous attempts to contact us, they finally
> decided to just mail us the contract.
>
> --
--
>
>
> The Bullshit they want us to believe:
>
> Webcasting CARP: What's All The Fuss About?
> Who is it? Three-person Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel (CARP)
appointed
> by the U.S. Copyright Office.
> What is it? The CARP submitted a report to the Copyright Office
recommending
> royalty rates to be paid by webcasters and simulcasters (i.e. FCC-licensed
> broadcasters that simultaneously retransmit on the Internet) to artists
and
> copyright holders.
> When? The proposed rates were submitted on February 20, 2002; The
Copyright
> Office must rule on the rates by the end of May 2002.
> What's the issue? In recent weeks, the CARP rates have become the subject
of
> an intense misinformation and propaganda campaign (so called "grassroots"
> but really ginned up by sophisticated lobbyists in D.C.) -- waged through
> the news media, emails to Capitol Hill and numerous Internet sites. The
goal
> is to scare non-commercial webcasters - including college radio stations
and
> so-called hobbyists - and their members of Congress into thinking that the
> CARP rates are going to drive non-commercial webcasters out of business.
The
> RIAA's Position On CARP Rates Contrary to what has been reported in the
news
> media and circulated on the Internet, the RIAA and its member companies
want
> ALL webcasters, large and small, to succeed. Unlike terrestrial
> broadcasters, webcasters - particularly non-commercial webcasters -
provide
> a much-needed outlet for musical diversity (i.e., by providing "airplay"
for
> new artists, artists with a niche following and artists who play unusual
> genres of music). Webcasting also represents an important and growing
source
> of revenue for record labels, as well as for artists and performers. The
> CARP rates will enable webcasters to thrive. Contrary to press reports,
the
> evidence strongly suggests that many of the non-commercial webcasters who
> think the CARP rates will put them out of busines will actually only be
> required to pay the minimum (and minimal) annual fee of $500.
> How could our royalty calculations differ so dramatically from the claims
of
> webcasters? Non-commercial webcasters (like a hobbyist) are the targets of
a
> well-orchestrated misinformation campaign. Most of the fee projections
> reported in the news media make the erroneous assumption that every
listener
> who ever logs into a given non-commercial webcast remains logged into the
> site 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, 365 days per year. This assumes
that
> no one ever logs off and listeners only visit that particular site. While
no
> one can say for sure what the actual listener's time is, the notion that
> they stayed logged on 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, is preposterous and
the
> subject of gross exaggerations. We recognize and appreciate that
> non-commercial broadcasters are a special class of web radio; the rates
> should accordingly reflect that. We would welcome the opportunity to
> negotiate a solution. Artists and labels are entitled to be paid for their
> work-the music recordings on which webcasting businesses are being built.
> Artists and record companies deserve to be rewarded for the creative
> contributions that webcasters utilize to build their businesses.
Webcasters
> have many costs, but one of the least expensive is the music that is the
> foundation of their business. Musicians and artists should not be forced
to
> subsidize the profit margin of webcasters like MTV, Microsoft, AOL
> TimeWarner and others.
>
> The minimum fees are like
