Re: Internet Radio Fees | Developments

14 msg	How to change a light bulb
6 msg	Firefox always asks for Media Player yet it is ...
10 msg	secnews not responding
2 msg	Re: [OT] <WinKey> combos. . . . [was: Re:...
5 msg	Gecko versions & future XULrunner apps incl...
1 msg	Mozilla Scheduled Downtime - 5/8/2007,7pm - 9pm...
3 msg	Where does the $55 million a year go?
2 msg	Re: TB versions
9 msg	another one wants to unsubscribe
18 msg	someone want to unsubscribe
34 msg	scrollbar width
6 msg	Flash plugin bad hair day
8 msg	Re: Downloading 101????
34 msg	Re: Why Seamonkeys?
1 msg	Mozilla Scheduled Downtime - 5/1/2007,7pm - 8pm...
140 msg	Re: OT spam and munged addresses
4 msg	moz.dev.general
4 msg	Sandbox

Internet Radio Fees \| Developments
\ JoeS (28 Apr 2007)
. \ Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo (28 Apr 2007)
. \ Irwin Greenwald (28 Apr 2007)
. \ David E. Ross (29 Apr 2007)
. . \ David E. Ross (29 Apr 2007)
. . \ Alex K. (30 Apr 2007)

1 msg	list of program files

Subject:	Re: Internet Radio Fees \| Developments
Group:	Mozilla-general
From:	Alex K.
Date:	30 Apr 2007

David E. Ross wrote:
> JoeS wrote:
>> From: http://news.com.com/2100-1028_3-6179627.html
>>
>>> A bill introduced in Congress Thursday aims to overturn a controversial royalty fee increase that Internet radio advocates say threatens to cripple their services.
>>>
>>> The "Internet Radio Equality Act," introduced by Reps. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) and Don Manzullo (R-Ill.), would invalidate a March 2 decision by the U.S. Copyright Royalty Board that calls for raising royalty rates paid by Net radio operators.
>>>
>>> "You can't put an economic chokehold on this emerging force of democracy," Inslee said in a statement e-mailed by a spokeswoman. "There has to be a business model that allows creative Webcasters to thrive and the existing rule removes all the oxygen from this space."
>>>
>>> The bill's introduction comes less than two weeks after the CRB declined to reconsider most of its decision. Small Webcasters, National Public Radio, Clear Channel Communications and others had filed petitions for a rehearing. Some have indicated they are considering filing an appeal of the rules in court.
>> JoeS
>
> If I go to Thomas at <http://thomas.loc.gov/>, I can find Inslee's bill.
> However, it's listed as having NO coauthors or cosponsors. Thomas
> inidcates that Manzullo has submitted no legislation in this session of
> Congress.
>
> The question I have is whether (without Inslee's bill) Webcasting
> involves a higher rate of royalties than radio broadcasting.
>

It depends. :-)

Webcasters will pay more than straight radio broadcasting, in that they
are now required to pay *both* publishing royalties, which go to the
song writers, and performance royalties, which go to the record
companies (and supposedly the bands, as well). (I may have that
switched around.)

Radio broadcasters pay only publishing royalties.

However, *if* a radio broadcaster *also* streams over the Internet,
*then* they will pay both royalties.

So, what it comes down to is Internet streaming being treated differently.

Note that they do differentiate between downloading and streaming. Not
too long ago, the music companies wanted to get performance royalties
for music purchased and downloaded from, say, the Itunes music store.
But they were denied, the judges having ruled that purchasing &
downloading was no different than purchasing a CD, on which they receive
no performance royalties.

I don't really understand, if purchasing & downloading is considered the
same as a buying a CD, why streaming is *not* considered the same as
broadcasting? I just don't understand the logic behind the decision,
well, other than that *little* special interest called the RIAA.

According to them, if music gets anywhere *near* your computer, you
*must* be a thief.

--
Alex K.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general