Save "net Radio

[ScottW]

http://www.savenetradio.org/

I wonder if independent artists outside of RIAA will ever become the
internet radio music providers?

I know that current progressive rock bands get no air time on
broadcast radio to speak of.
Killing internet radio will damage them.

I wonder if they'll just go outside the RIAA? As far as I am
concerned the RIAA is
a dinosaur and needs to implode.

ScottW

[Jenn]

In article om>,
ScottW > wrote:

As far as I am
> concerned the RIAA is
> a dinosaur and needs to implode.
>
> ScottW

Why?

[ScottW]

On May 3, 2:03 pm, Jenn > wrote:
> In article om>,
>
> ScottW > wrote:
>
> As far as I am
>
> > concerned the RIAA is
> > a dinosaur and needs to implode.
>
> > ScottW
>
> Why?

Because they aren't needed for musicians to get their music to the
public anymore.
All they do is choke off creativity in music...everything is for the
masses from them.
This whole licence thing actually prevents independent musicians whose
music isn't tied up by RIAA Copyrights and licenses from getting their
music broadcast. Radio PMs simply don't know how to deal with
unlicensed, unrestricted material.
Broadcast radio has gone to crap since I was young and it wasn't all
that great then.

Internet radio can be more niche oriented serving smaller audiences.
They bring diversity to music offerings that the capital requirements
for broadcast radio prevent. Internet radio allows for a lot of
music that would never be broadcast to be streamed. If the licenses
aren't reasonable they won't survive. I know a partner in Aural moon
(a great internet stream IMO) and they aren't doing it to make money.
They do it to get good music out to prog rock fans who can't get
anything via broadcast. Increased license fees will force them to
try to go total subscription and they doubt that will work.
It sucks and its RIAA fault.

ScottW

[Jenn]

In article . com>,
ScottW > wrote:

> On May 3, 2:03 pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > In article om>,
> >
> > ScottW > wrote:
> >
> > As far as I am
> >
> > > concerned the RIAA is
> > > a dinosaur and needs to implode.
> >
> > > ScottW
> >
> > Why?
>
> Because they aren't needed for musicians to get their music to the
> public anymore.

That was never their purpose.

> All they do is choke off creativity in music...everything is for the
> masses from them.

No, everything is for their membership from them; they're a trade
organization.

> This whole licence thing actually prevents independent musicians whose
> music isn't tied up by RIAA Copyrights

What is a "RIAA Copyright"?

> and licenses from getting their
> music broadcast. Radio PMs simply don't know how to deal with
> unlicensed, unrestricted material.
> Broadcast radio has gone to crap since I was young and it wasn't all
> that great then.

On the last sentence we can agree. But it has much more to do with
ownership of radio stations than anything else; large companies buying
up radio stations all over the country and using the same tight playlist
everywhere. It's the sonic equivalent of McDonald's.

>
> Internet radio can be more niche oriented serving smaller audiences.
> They bring diversity to music offerings that the capital requirements
> for broadcast radio prevent. Internet radio allows for a lot of
> music that would never be broadcast to be streamed.

I totally agree with all of the above. I'm a consumer of IR myself.

> If the licenses
> aren't reasonable they won't survive. I know a partner in Aural moon
> (a great internet stream IMO) and they aren't doing it to make money.
> They do it to get good music out to prog rock fans who can't get
> anything via broadcast. Increased license fees will force them to
> try to go total subscription and they doubt that will work.
> It sucks and its RIAA fault.

I might agree with that; I have to investigate further. Of course, at
the end of the day, Congress passed the law.

[ScottW]

On May 3, 10:03 pm, Jenn > wrote:
> In article . com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> ScottW > wrote:
> > On May 3, 2:03 pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > > In article om>,
>
> > > ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > As far as I am
>
> > > > concerned the RIAA is
> > > > a dinosaur and needs to implode.
>
> > > > ScottW
>
> > > Why?
>
> > Because they aren't needed for musicians to get their music to the
> > public anymore.
>
> That was never their purpose.
>
> > All they do is choke off creativity in music...everything is for the
> > masses from them.
>
> No, everything is for their membership from them; they're a trade
> organization.
>
> > This whole licence thing actually prevents independent musicians whose
> > music isn't tied up by RIAA Copyrights
>
> What is a "RIAA Copyright"?

Labels etc. who hold copyrights to music and are members of the RIAA.
The RIAA proudly claims that it members produce manufacture and
distribute 90% of all legitimate sound recordings produced and sold
in the US. It was the RIAA that lobbied the CRB to set the rates.
>
> > and licenses from getting their
> > music broadcast. Radio PMs simply don't know how to deal with
> > unlicensed, unrestricted material.
> > Broadcast radio has gone to crap since I was young and it wasn't all
> > that great then.
>
> On the last sentence we can agree. But it has much more to do with
> ownership of radio stations than anything else; large companies buying
> up radio stations all over the country and using the same tight playlist
> everywhere. It's the sonic equivalent of McDonald's.

It's more than that. Large corporate radio stations are able to
independently
negotiate royalty rates with the major labels who in turn receive
committments to play their stuff. Small independents are screwed in
terms
paying the CRB set rates in exchange for their independence.

>
>
>
> > Internet radio can be more niche oriented serving smaller audiences.
> > They bring diversity to music offerings that the capital requirements
> > for broadcast radio prevent. Internet radio allows for a lot of
> > music that would never be broadcast to be streamed.
>
> I totally agree with all of the above. I'm a consumer of IR myself.
>
> > If the licenses
> > aren't reasonable they won't survive. I know a partner in Aural moon
> > (a great internet stream IMO) and they aren't doing it to make money.
> > They do it to get good music out to prog rock fans who can't get
> > anything via broadcast. Increased license fees will force them to
> > try to go total subscription and they doubt that will work.
> > It sucks and its RIAA fault.
>
> I might agree with that; I have to investigate further. Of course, at
> the end of the day, Congress passed the law.

Which is why the site I referenced calls on you to contact your
congressperson.

Heres the ruling from CRB. Its interesting just to note who the
players are.

http://www.loc.gov/crb/proceedings/2005-1/final-rates-terms2005-1.pdf

Note the extremely large corporate interests by the likes of Yahoo,
MS,
and Clearchannel who actually prefer higher CRB rates because they
know they
can negotiate their own rates with the Sony BMGs of the world.

The whole system constrains supply to the big labels and distribution
channels to big radio corps. Neither of which want small
independents
to flourish at either end of the chain.

ScottW

[Jenn]

In article . com>,
ScottW > wrote:

> On May 3, 10:03 pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > In article . com>,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ScottW > wrote:
> > > On May 3, 2:03 pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > In article om>,
> >
> > > > ScottW > wrote:
> >
> > > > As far as I am
> >
> > > > > concerned the RIAA is
> > > > > a dinosaur and needs to implode.
> >
> > > > > ScottW
> >
> > > > Why?
> >
> > > Because they aren't needed for musicians to get their music to the
> > > public anymore.
> >
> > That was never their purpose.
> >
> > > All they do is choke off creativity in music...everything is for the
> > > masses from them.
> >
> > No, everything is for their membership from them; they're a trade
> > organization.
> >
> > > This whole licence thing actually prevents independent musicians whose
> > > music isn't tied up by RIAA Copyrights
> >
> > What is a "RIAA Copyright"?
>
> Labels etc. who hold copyrights to music and are members of the RIAA.
> The RIAA proudly claims that it members produce manufacture and
> distribute 90% of all legitimate sound recordings produced and sold
> in the US. It was the RIAA that lobbied the CRB to set the rates.
> >
> > > and licenses from getting their
> > > music broadcast. Radio PMs simply don't know how to deal with
> > > unlicensed, unrestricted material.
> > > Broadcast radio has gone to crap since I was young and it wasn't all
> > > that great then.
> >
> > On the last sentence we can agree. But it has much more to do with
> > ownership of radio stations than anything else; large companies buying
> > up radio stations all over the country and using the same tight playlist
> > everywhere. It's the sonic equivalent of McDonald's.
>
> It's more than that. Large corporate radio stations are able to
> independently
> negotiate royalty rates with the major labels who in turn receive
> committments to play their stuff. Small independents are screwed in
> terms
> paying the CRB set rates in exchange for their independence.
>
> >
> >
> >
> > > Internet radio can be more niche oriented serving smaller audiences.
> > > They bring diversity to music offerings that the capital requirements
> > > for broadcast radio prevent. Internet radio allows for a lot of
> > > music that would never be broadcast to be streamed.
> >
> > I totally agree with all of the above. I'm a consumer of IR myself.
> >
> > > If the licenses
> > > aren't reasonable they won't survive. I know a partner in Aural moon
> > > (a great internet stream IMO) and they aren't doing it to make money.
> > > They do it to get good music out to prog rock fans who can't get
> > > anything via broadcast. Increased license fees will force them to
> > > try to go total subscription and they doubt that will work.
> > > It sucks and its RIAA fault.
> >
> > I might agree with that; I have to investigate further. Of course, at
> > the end of the day, Congress passed the law.
>
> Which is why the site I referenced calls on you to contact your
> congressperson.
>
> Heres the ruling from CRB. Its interesting just to note who the
> players are.
>
> http://www.loc.gov/crb/proceedings/2005-1/final-rates-terms2005-1.pdf
>
> Note the extremely large corporate interests by the likes of Yahoo,
> MS,
> and Clearchannel who actually prefer higher CRB rates because they
> know they
> can negotiate their own rates with the Sony BMGs of the world.
>
> The whole system constrains supply to the big labels and distribution
> channels to big radio corps. Neither of which want small
> independents
> to flourish at either end of the chain.
>
> ScottW

I'm certainly not stating that RIAA is perfect. And from my preliminary
look into this issue, I might well agree that they are blowing it on
this issue. But I do agree with their overall mission and work, and I
think that "implosion" is far too drastic.