Broadcasters Oppose Net Radio Fees

September 16th, 2002 by Doc Searls in

Big broadcasters don't want their streams taxed off the Net either, it turns out. Here's a progress report on this and other developments in the fight to save Internet broadcasting in the U.S.
Your rating: None

The body of this article is still being converted and will be available shortly.

email: doc@ssc.com

__________________________

Doc Searls is Senior Editor of Linux Journal


Special Magazine Offer -- Free Gift with Subscription
Receive a free digital copy of Linux Journal's System Administration Special Edition as well as instant online access to current and past issues. CLICK HERE for offer

Linux Journal: delivering readers the advice and inspiration they need to get the most out of their Linux systems since 1994.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Anonymous's picture

Re: Broadcasters Oppose Net Radio Fees

On September 18th, 2002 Anonymous says:

What I don't get from all this is how the U.S. government can manage to say "If you do this, you have to pay this much." It's one thing to charge a certain amout in tax, or in licensing fees--but one of the principles this country was founded on was the idea of an unlimited right to contract.

In other words, if the netcasters and the artists have an agreement on what will be paid and when, then how can the CARP or any other agency come in and tell them different?

Imagine this scenario: you go to buy a car, but the one you want is suddenly $40,000, when yesterday it was $20,000. The dealer tells you that the DOT (Dept. of Transportation) has ruled that they can't sell that particular car for less than $40,000. Pretty ridiculous, eh? That's what CARP is doing, though.

Yet another case of the federal government overstepping its bounds, and no one telling it to quit.

Doc's picture

Re: Broadcasters Oppose Net Radio Fees

On September 19th, 2002 Doc (not verified) says:

Exactly.

It's a perfect example of regulating a business before it has a chance to establish itself. The difference in this case was that the regulations are so severe that they ammount to outlawing the business, turning the markeplace into a business district so exclusive that nobody can afford to set up shop there.

What really amazes me is the absolute silence of all those talk radio guys who constantly moan about Big Government and Big Regulations. I mean, why isn't Rush on this case? These laws came down from Bill Clinton's friends in Hollywood, fergoshsakes. A bunch of Democrats! Guys who don't do anything unless whole buildings of lawyers get involved! Big-gov lovers who hate free enterprise so much that they believe the only rights worth having are the ones you "clear" (see here and here).

I'm sure its because none of these guys want to bite the hand that milks them.

brianlane's picture

Re: Broadcasters Oppose Net Radio Fees

On September 16th, 2002 brianlane (not verified) says:

I think that part of the problem with the lack of outcry is that most people don't know what is happeneing. Thanks to this article I think I have a bit of a better handle on things. If I read this correctly (and I may need to reread it a few times, but its lunch and I have to get back to work) these are stations that are already licensing the contenct and paying the talent for conventional over-the airwaves broadcasts, right?

If they suddenly had an increase in conventional listenership would they be charged more for the content they are broadcasting? If not then the addition of an internet stream shouldn't cost them any extra licensing fees.

But how does this effect internet only stations? They don't pay any conventional licensing fees, so they should be charged something for what they use. How does this scenario fit into things?

Brian

Doc's picture

Re: Broadcasters Oppose Net Radio Fees

On September 16th, 2002 Doc (not verified) says:

I should have included links to earlier stories on the subject. Here's a list, with the most recent stories at the top:

Licensed radio stations have neverbeen required to pay "performance" fees to artists. For many years they have paid small fees to BMI and ASCAP for the right to use compositions. That money is supposed to go to composers.

When the DMCA was being written, the dot-com madness was getting into full swing. Hollywood had lawmakers fearing the possibility that unlicensed Internet broadcasters could stream "perfect" copies of CDs to everybody, and decided to characterize those streams as "performances" for which charges would be made by the stations to the listeners. Lawmakers agreed. The DMCA passed unanimously.

It's a ludicrous Act that got railroaded through, and once it was in place the RIAA stepped in and engineered the rest of the process. Webcasters, small and without any political clout, got run over.

You can bet that if similar fees were proposed for over-the-air radio by the Copyright Office, the NAB would have raised a stink to the heavens. Actually, that's what they want to do now that they understand that these fees apply to them as well as to the little cloutless webcasters. But they know the cause is fairly lost, which is why they've issued this motion for a "partial stay."

And, quite honestly, most of over-the-air broadcasters still don't understand the Net or care much about it. They just don't want to be charged for having sent streams on it over the last few years.

Post new comment

Please note that comments may not appear immediately, so there is no need to repost your comment.
The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <pre> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <i> <b>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

Newsletter

Each week Linux Journal editors will tell you what's hot in the world of Linux. You will receive late breaking news, technical tips and tricks, and links to in-depth stories featured on www.linuxjournal.com.
Sign up for our Email Newsletter

Featured Videos

Setting up an https server in Apache is easy. This tutorial covers how to create and sign your ssl certificate as well as how to configure the web server.

From the Magazine

January 2009, #177

It's a battle as old as time: good vs. evil. Fortunately, Linux and FOSS are on our side as we wage the battle against those who try to steal our secrets and invade our systems.

Checking your system's security is best done sooner rather than later. Test the locks with our article on security verification; find out how to use PAM to help secure your systems; use MinorFS and AppArmor to implement discretionary access control; learn more about Samba security in part III of our series; use Darknet to help detect bots and secure your systems; use the Yubikey to increase your site's security; and don't forget to lock the doors, because a cold boot attack could render your security useless if somebody has physical access to your computer.

But, we're not just about sowing the seeds of fear. We also show you how to use memcached in Rails, how to manage multiple servers efficiently, how to deploy applications easily with Capistrano, how to manage your videos with MythVideo, how to mix it up a bit (your audio that is), and even play a few games.

Read this issue