LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST Archives

ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST  July 2007

ARSCLIST July 2007

Subject:

Re: Urgent Message From SaveNetRadio

From:

Dismuke <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 12 Jul 2007 19:57:16 -0700

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (177 lines)

--- Bob Olhsson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> -----Original Message-----
> From Miss Q: "...As for the fee cap, it limits fees
> through 2008 if the
> station agrees to
> NEVER lobby congress to change the fees. Not exactly
> a good deal for a year
> of broadcasting."
>
>
> Where do you see a year of broadcasting other than
> for multi-million dollar
> corporations?


It was in the fine print that was NOT disclosed to the
general public or to Congress in the SoundExchange
press release.

Furthermore, if you are so all fired opposed to "multi
million dollar corporations" then why on earth are
you so shamelessly shilling for SoundExchange which is
an arm of the RIAA, a CARTEL of multi-million dollar
corporations? Plus, the RIAA is not merely a cartel
of multi-million dollar corporations; it is a cartel
which is trying to bankrupt small mom and pop
businesses, non profit organizations, hobbyists and
independent artists that it is TERRIFIED of as
potential emerging competitors.

If you are so anti - "multimillion dollar
corporations" then you are on the WRONG side of this
battle. (For the record, I am NOT anti multimillion
dollar corporations. First off, two million dollars
of capitalization in today's world is jack squat.
Second - if a person or a company is successful and
makes lots of money providing products and services
people voluntarily choose to buy, then that is a good
thing and the result of VIRTUOUS activity. Being
wealthy is only wrong when the wealth comes via ill
gotten means - which, by the way, is how the RIAA
labels are apparently starting seek their wealth now
that the legitimate functions they once served are
technologically obsolete and no longer in demand by
customers).

If you want to talk about a "multi million dollar
corporation" lets talk about a multi BILLION dollar
corporation called CBS - you know, the old dinosaur
media corporation. CBS recently purchased a London
based webcaster called Last.fm. When webcasters such
as myself shut our streams down a couple of weeks ago
for a Day of Silence to draw attention to the royalty
crisis, Last.fm, undoubtedly acting under orders from
its new masters, did not participate and SNEERED at
other webcasters saying that they were "baffled at the
opinions being aired" and that the existence of
royalties "has been a commercial reality for years."
Well, no wonder they sneered and were unconcerned
about rates. Just the other day, they announced a
sweetheart deal with Sony which would BYPASS the CRB
rates in exchange for playing Sony's music.

In other words, CBS will get to pay what SoundExchange
calls "below market rates" because it will play only
Sony music and, most likely, music from other RIAA
labels as a result of similar deals. What kind of
music will be ABSENT from Last.fm? That's right.
independent, non RIAA music - just as such music is
absent today from the FM stations run by CBS. And,
going forward why WOULD they play music by
independents? To do so, they would have to pay
statutory rates or they would have to do one-on-one
deals with each and every independent artist's
copyright holder which would simply NOT be a
commercially viable thing to do.

The whole goal of this royalty mess is for the RIAA to
kill off Internet radio stations that play independent
artists and niche genres and replace them with a
handful of hand picked, deep-pocketed corporations who
will get sweetheart deals to play RIAA label music.

When the SoundExchange denounces Yahoo and AOL as
greedy rich corporations - well, isn't that the pot
calling the kettle black? What on earth are
Sony/Warner/Universal/EMI?

When SoundExchange claims to be the champion of
artists - well, that so pathetic that it would be
funny if the stakes were not so high. The ONLY
artists that will benefit from this are those who have
already become famous and already have mass market
hits. Brittany Spears will probably benefit from
this. For artists who are not yet famous, this will
be a DISASTER because they have come to depend on
Internet radio as a means of promoting themselves and
introducing their music to new audiences. Here is
one artist who makes just that point very well:
http://tinyurl.com/yszjuq

The truth of the matter is that SoundExchange/RIAA
seek to SCREW artists by bringing back the days when
the practically the ONLY way one had any hope of
bringing one's work to national and international
audiences was to get past the gatekeepers at the RIAA
labels and the music directors at major market FM
stations.

Furthmore, when most existing webcasters are bankrupt
and corporations such as CBS and the other handpicked
companies sign sweetheart deals with the RIAA - well,
since those deals will bypass SoundExchange, the
artists will not get ANYTHING as labels are not
required to pay any under direct licensing.
SoundExchange knows this very well. The only way
artists who are not copyright holders are credited for
royalties is if the peformance is paid through
SoundExchange at statutory rates. If SoundExchange is
actually concerned about artists, why are they pushing
for a scheme where the ONLY webcasters that can afford
to survive will be those who enter into direct
licensing agreements with RIAA labels? The answer,
of course, is SoundExchange is NOT concerned about
artists - that is just propaganda and LIES to obscure
the only thing that they ARE concerned about: the
agenda of their puppet masters at the RIAA which
founded SoundExchange and still controlls it through
its domination of the Board of Directors.

Bob - you have evaded every other request I have made
on this forum for proof to back up your assertions. I
am asking you - is the situation I describe what you
call fair and moral? Is it fair and moral for a
cartel of multinational multibillion dollar
corporations to push through a law that basically sets
up rates that will make it financially unviable for
anyone to perform and promote music put out by their
emerging competitors? Is it fair and moral for a
multinational corporation to push through such a law
where a puppet organization that it controls (i.e.,
SoundExchange) has the power to negotiate the terms
that those who wish to promote their competitors'
products must abide by? And you do not need to once
again remind anyone that webcasters can license
directly with copyright holders. Everyone already
knows that. And it is largely irrelevant because, as
anyone who gives a moment's worth of thought as to
what kind of logistical nightmare contacting hundreds
of copyright holders one-on-one would entail can
clearly see, such an approach is NOT practical or
financially viable. Furthermore, is it fair and moral
that webcasters are on the verge of bankruptcy because
of royalty rates which are imposed RETROACTIVELY due
to the fact that the government board that sets the
rates did not announce what they would be AHEAD of
time as is the case with any other sort of commercial
transaction? You sneer at "multimillion dollar
corporations" - and yet you shill for a scheme that
plans to bankrupt VERY small companies in order to
artificially prop up the declining influence and
market share of a bunch of very wealthy and
established multi BILLION dollar conglomerates. How
do you reconcile that? You have claimed to be for the
artists - and yet you shill for a plan that will HURT
all but artists who are already successful and famous.
How do you reconcile that?

If you are going to shill for morally bankrupt and
evil people - well, that's your right. But people can
and should call you on it and demand that you back it
up. And if you once again evade legitimate questions
that are raised in response to your postings - well,
that too is your right. But you will be judged
accordingly.

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager