The Death of Web Radio?

The Death of Web Radio?

On April 16, right in the midst of the NAB2007 broadcasters conference, the Copyright Royalty Board upheld its earlier decision to impose higher royalty rates on Web radio stations. The stations will have to cough up these royalty payments ? 300% to 1,200% higher than the fees they are used to paying -- retroactively. Unless Congress gets involved, that will mean the death of many Web radio stations, whose revenues will fall short of these royalty payments.

[continued]
formatting link
Reply to
Brandon D Cartwright
Loading thread data ...

or move offshore.

Reply to
Homer J Simpson

So listen to the Beeb, or Radio(insert Non US country here)

xpost to soc.men removed

martin

Reply to
martin griffith

Obviously you don't understand the issues involved or are quite happy to see creative and diversity strangled by conglomerates.

formatting link

Before this ruling was handed down, the vast majority of webcasters were barely making ends meet as Internet radio advertising revenue is just beginning to develop. Without a doubt most Internet radio services will go bankrupt and cease webcasting if this royalty rate is not reversed by the Congress, and webcasters? demise will mean a great loss of creative and diverse radio. Surviving webcasters will need sweetheart licenses that major record labels will be only too happy to offer, so long as the webcaster permits the major label to control the programming and playlist. Is that the Internet radio you care to hear?

As you know, the wonderful diversity of Internet radio is enjoyed by tens of millions of Americans and provides promotional and royalty opportunities to independent labels and artists that are not available to them on broadcast radio. What you may not know is that in just the last year Internet radio listening jumped dramatically, from 45 million listeners per month to 72 million listeners each month. Internet radio is already popular and it is already benefiting thousands of artists who are finding new fans online every day.

Action must be taken to stop this faulty ruling from destroying the future of Internet radio that so many millions of listeners depend on each day. Instead of relying on lawyers filing appeals in the CRB and the courts, the SaveNetRadio Coalition has been formed to represent every webcaster, every Net Radio listener, and every artist who enjoys and benefits from this medium. Please join our fight for the preservation of Internet radio.

Reply to
Brandon D Cartwright

I fear the days of pirate radio ships are over. Maybe the freedom of the Internet as we have known it is dying.

Reply to
Brandon D Cartwright

Obviously you don't understand that Martin Griffith isn't in the US and probably doesn't listen to US radio stations, so it will not affect him in any way.

--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I\'ve got my DD214 to
prove it.
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Michael A. Terrell

The whole point of Web Radio is that its irrelevant where you are listening from.

Like millions world wide his choice is being restricted, the alternative genres available are being restricted.

This affects him whether he realizes it or not.

Are you so sanguine about the likes of Rupert Murdoch controlling all media outlets?

Reply to
Brandon D Cartwright

Are you referring to the freedom to not pay royalties, stealing from the artists, or do you have some other one in mind?

Reply to
Don Bowey

Well, I do listen to KUSC, even though I'm in Spain, but there are plenty more choices that are not US based

martin

Reply to
martin griffith

I don't really give a shit. There is nothing fit to watch on TV, and very little to listen to on the radio. HDTV is coming? Who cares? Streaming radio feeds from broadcast stations already pay royalties for the music. WSM, the station I listen to on line replaces their broadcast commercials with spots made specifically for their internet stream. A lot of the music they play was recorded live in their studios over the past 80 years, and they own all rights to air it.

--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I\'ve got my DD214 to
prove it.
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Michael A. Terrell

Of course,I just think it's a shame that all the small independent stations are being crushed with scarcely any comment .

It looks like Internet telephony is being crushed too.

Verizon ruling threatens all VoIP companies claim If Vonage infringes, so does everyone, says expert.

Two Verizon patents that Vonage was found to infringe are invalid, and if allowed to stand, could threaten all VoIP services, a telecoms industry veteran has said.

Two of the three Verizon patents a jury upheld in a March decision were described in a standards group called the VoIP Forum before Verizon filed for the patents, said Daniel Berninger, who had a hand in launching Vonage but now works as a telecom analyst for Tier 1 Research. The VoIP Forum described the name translation call-processing step in an open standard developed in 1996, and Verizon applied for the two patents in March 1997 and February 2000, he said.

Verizon's patents focus on using name translation to connect VoIP calls to traditional telephone networks. But without name translation, no VoIP calls could be completed, and all VoIP companies are in danger of getting sued, Berninger said. "If you translate these patents so ridiculously broadly, then there's nothing left," he said. "Everybody infringes."

[continued]
formatting link

Michael Geist warnedof this sort of thing but it'screeping in incrementally under the radar IMHO.

formatting link

Towards a two-tier internet

The egalitarian nature of the internet is under threat, argues internet law professor Michael Geist.

Internet service providers (ISPs) always seem to get the first call when a problem arises on the internet.

Lawmakers want them to assist with investigations into cyber crime, parents want them to filter out harmful content, consumers want them to stop spam, and copyright holders want them to curtail infringement. Despite the urge to hold providers accountable for such activities, the ISP community has been remarkably successful in maintaining a position of neutrality, the digital successor, in spirit and often in fact, to the common carrier phone company.

Adopting this approach has required strict adherence to a cardinal rule often referred to as "network neutrality." This principle holds that ISPs transport bits of data without discrimination, preference, or regard for content.

The network neutrality principle has served ISPs, internet firms and internet users well. It has enabled ISPs to plausibly argue that they function much like common carriers and therefore should be exempt from liability for the content that passes through their systems.

Websites, e-commerce companies, and other innovators have also relied on network neutrality, secure in the knowledge that the network treats all companies, whether big or small, equally. That approach enables those with the best products and services, not the deepest pockets, to emerge as the market winners.

Internet users have similarly benefited from the network neutrality principle. They enjoy access to greater choice in goods, services, and content regardless of which ISP they use.

While ISPs may compete based on price, service, or speed, they have not significantly differentiated their services based on availability of internet content or applications, which remains the same for all.

In short, network neutrality has enabled ISPs to invest heavily in new infrastructure, fostered greater competition and innovation, and provided all internet users with equal access to a dizzying array of content.

Challenges ahead

Notwithstanding its benefits, in recent months ISPs have begun to chip away at the principle, shifting toward a two-tiered internet that would enable them to prioritise their own network traffic over that of their competitors. Recent developments in the US and Canada suggest that ISPs may go even further in developing a two-tiered internet that differentiates between different types of services and content Michael Geist, University of Ottawa

The two-tiered approach is taking shape in various forms in different parts of the world.

In the developing world, where there is frequently limited telecommunications competition, many countries have begun blocking internet telephony services in order to protect the incumbent telecoms provider.

This approach, which has occurred in countries such as Panama, Oman, United Arab Emirates, and Mexico, reduces competitive choices for telecommunications services and cuts off consumers from one of the fastest growing segments of the internet.

In Europe, some ISPs have similarly begun to block access to internet telephony services. For example, this summer reports from Germany indicated that Vodafone had begun to block Voice over IP (Voip) traffic, treating the popular Skype program as "inappropriate content."

European ISPs have also faced mounting pressure to block access to peer-to-peer systems such as BitTorrent, which are widely used to share both authorised and unauthorised content.

The MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) and the IFPI (International Federation of the Phonographic Industry) are pushing European ISPs to implement filtering technology to block services and sites that the associations believe are "substantially dedicated to illegal file sharing or download services".

In fact, the content industries have even suggested that European ISPs limit the amount of bandwidth that can be used by consumers.

Issues of priorities

Recent developments in the US and Canada suggest that ISPs may go even further in developing a two-tiered internet that differentiates between different types of services and content.

North American ISPs have also begun to use their network position to unfairly disadvantage internet telephony competition. For example, Canadian cable provider Shaw now offers a premium Voip service that promises to prioritise internet telephony traffic for a monthly fee.

The potential implications of such a service are obvious. The use of competing services will require a supplemental fee, while Shaw will be free to waive the charge for its own service.

In the US, earlier this year at least one ISP briefly blocked competing internet telephony traffic until the Federal Communications Commission ordered it to cease the practice.

While ISPs once avoided content intervention, even that now seems possible. This summer, Telus, another Canadian ISP, blocked access to a pro-union website named Voices For Change during a contentious labour dispute.

The company has since indicated that it was a one-time event, though in the process it also blocked more than 600 additional websites from the U.S. and Australia hosted at the same IP address.

Alarm bells

Canadian customers of Rogers, Canada's largest cable ISP, have speculated for months that the company has begun to block access to BitTorrent as well as the downloading of podcasts from services such as iTunes.

While Rogers initially denied the charges, it now acknowledges that it uses "traffic shaping" to prioritise certain online activity. As a result, applications that Rogers deems to be a lower priority may cease to function effectively.

Moreover, blocking services, websites, and certain applications may not be the end game. Some ISPs see the potential for greater revenue by charging websites or services for priority access to their customers.

In the US, BellSouth Chief Technology Officer executive William L Smith, recently mused about the potential to charge a premium to websites for prioritisation downloading, noting that Yahoo could pay to load faster than Google.

Reports last week indicated that BellSouth and AT&T are now lobbying the US Congress for the right to create a two-tiered internet, where their own internet services would be transmitted faster and more efficiently than those of their competitors.

These developments should send alarm bells to internet companies, users, and regulators worldwide.

While prioritising websites or applications may hold some economic promise, the lack of broadband competition and insufficient transparency surrounding these actions will rightly lead to growing calls for regulatory reform that grants legal protection for the principle of network neutrality.

Michael Geist holds the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law.

Reply to
Brandon D Cartwright

That's very nice to hear. Isn't the US in the process of using trade agreements to force other countries to enact the same copyright laws?

Regards,

Mike Monett

Reply to
Mike Monett

dont you mean

An Honest politician stays bought

martin

Reply to
martin griffith

Very good:) Regards,

Mike Monett

Reply to
Mike Monett

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.