[alphasubzero949]

Anyone catch today's Daily Source Code? Seems like the RIAA and their cronies over in Europe are declaring war on podcasters playing licensed music, even mashups.

Discuss.

[::maroma::]

They gotta have something to do. I mean God knows they aren't spending their time and money on innovation.

[Mastrap]

Just don't buy their music. Vote with your wallet.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by Mastrap

Just don't buy their music. Vote with your wallet.

That's the thing -- when their sales drop off, they'll blame it on that Internet piracy and use it as an excuse do even more stupid overbearing things....

[starman]

I was right.

[Kevin]

I listen to the camp freddy radio cast. It just deletes the songs off the podcast. You just get the chatting.

[The Godfather]

Originally Posted by Dork.

That's the thing -- when their sales drop off, they'll blame it on that Internet piracy and use it as an excuse do even more stupid overbearing things....

We don't make deals with terrorists, but we give in before the RIAA threat?

[Randman]

Hmm, sounds like he's giving in too quickly. Does this mean no more hit test? No more backward track test? I haven't listened to 275 yet but the mashups are half the fun of listening to the show.

[Randman]

Hmm, sounds like he's giving in too quickly. Does this mean no more hit test? No more backward track test? I haven't listened to 275 yet but the mashups are half the fun of listening to the show.

[The Internet]

[Thorin]

Originally Posted by Randman

Hmm, sounds like he's giving in too quickly. Does this mean no more hit test? No more backward track test? I haven't listened to 275 yet but the mashups are half the fun of listening to the show.

He always maintained that Backtracks and The Hit Test were 'fair use', so hopefully they'll continue. He always said that mashups were completely illegal anyway, so it's not that surprising he's dropping them now.

[skewwiff]

Good God, the RIAA are bloody idiots aren't they? These people are promoting their music for them, for free, via mixtapes, mashups and Podcasts - they couldn't hope for a better grass roots marketing campaign.

And they still want to retain control of distribution of music??? I say we take it from them.

[Goldfinger]

Originally Posted by Mastrap

Just don't buy their music. Vote with your wallet.

That's easier said than done, no ? I for one have no idea what music the RIAA distributes. What if they distribute music that I like ? Should I change my choice in music just because of their ethics. If I could I most certainly would (altough the RIAA has almost nothing to say here I think so I don't really care about them) but it isn't always feasable.
Or am I maybe misunderstanding what the RIAA actually is ?

[Goldfinger]

**** the database.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by The Godfather

We don't make deals with terrorists, but we give in before the RIAA threat?

Capitalism is apparently socially more acceptable than terrorism.

BTW - I hope nobody's surprised by this.

I mean, broadcast radio needs to pay fees to the GEMA/RIAA/BIEM/STEMRA whatever to broadcast music; who the hell figured podcast radio wouldn't?

I do think the ****ers should exempt podcasts, but this was to be expected, no?

[Randman]

I think the line needs to be drawn between commercial podcasts and non-commercial ones. If someone has a Podcast that is making money (sponsors, etc), then I could see them having to pay a license and be able to use music just as a radio broadcast does.

However, so many of the Podcasts on the iTMS and elsewhere do not pull in one cent. And those people should not have to pay to play when it boils down to promotion for the artist and label, however small.

All the RIAA had to do was set up a sliding scale of fees. Say I want to play some Green Day on my Podcast (which has not made 1¢. I'd be willing to pay, say $25, a year for the right to play the music in full.

Sadly, logic and fair play come nowhere near the record company's mindset.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Randman

I think the line needs to be drawn between commercial podcasts and non-commercial ones. If someone has a Podcast that is making money (sponsors, etc), then I could see them having to pay a license and be able to use music just as a radio broadcast does.

That's a line you're not gonna be able to draw.

Set up a website with a "donate now" paypal link, and you're commercial. Right? No?

[Randman]

Originally Posted by analogika

Set up a website with a "donate now" paypal link, and you're commercial. Right? No?

If you don't have to pay income tax on any revenue generated by any donate links, then the RIAA shouldn't be able to charge for you to promote artists.

Originally Posted by analogika

Capitalism is apparently socially more acceptable than terrorism.

BTW - I hope nobody's surprised by this.

I mean, broadcast radio needs to pay fees to the GEMA/RIAA/BIEM/STEMRA whatever to broadcast music; who the hell figured podcast radio wouldn't?

I do think the ****ers should exempt podcasts, but this was to be expected, no?

Actually, standard over-the-air radio stations in the U.S. really don't pay big fees to broadcast music (yet). Usually about $500 a year to ASCAP, BMI or SESAC.

The internet music "tax" has been debated since 1998 - when it was introduced in the DMCA. I think nowadays, non-commerical internet only stations pay something like .000251 per hour of music plus yearly fees to ASCAP, BMI, SESAC (haven't a clue what those costs are).

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by analogika

Capitalism is apparently socially more acceptable than terrorism.

Well that is a no-brainer.
They really aren't comparable.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by analogika

I do think the ****ers should exempt podcasts, but this was to be expected, no?

You need to pay GEMA if you play music in the elevator for two people, any you want podcasts with thousands of listeners to be exempted?

GEMA plays an important role because that system allows radio, clubs, shops etc. to play music without having to constantly negotiate with dozens of right-holders. We usually only see Brittany Spears and the other multi-millionaires at the top, but there are thousands of other artists who hardly make a living and they depend on the money that is collected even from playing their music in elevators or shopping malls (though I have no idea how large the bureaucracy overhead of the GEMA is and how fairly the collected money is distributed – but on principle I think I'm sort of right).

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Well that is a no-brainer.
They really aren't comparable.

O RLY!?

:smacks Kevin's forehead:

[Kevin]

I was actually attempting to agree with you there analog. But I can see how I worded it, you might think otherwise. I apologize and stuff.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

You need to pay GEMA if you play music in the elevator for two people, any you want podcasts with thousands of listeners to be exempted?

GEMA plays an important role because that system allows radio, clubs, shops etc. to play music without having to constantly negotiate with dozens of right-holders. We usually only see Brittany Spears and the other multi-millionaires at the top, but there are thousands of other artists who hardly make a living and they depend on the money that is collected even from playing their music in elevators or shopping malls (though I have no idea how large the bureaucracy overhead of the GEMA is and how fairly the collected money is distributed – but on principle I think I'm sort of right).

I am painfully aware of musicians' dire need to cash in on GEMA fees.

However, GEMA fees apply whenever music is used in a COMMERCIAL setting, i.e. when it is instrumentalized to make money. Music played in shopping malls, elevators, and bars, is used for the express purpose of making paying customers feel comfortable, hence GEMA/BIEM/STEMRA/etc. fees.

Podcasting is a phenomenon that is changing the mediascape, and it is doing so only because ANYBODY can podcast without initial investment nor the need to actually make money.

Of course, as far as spoken word and music reviews are concerned, this won't change with RIAA involvement.

[analogika]

teh MacNN hamster spinneth teh wheel...

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I was actually attempting to agree with you there analog. But I can see how I worded it, you might think otherwise. I apologize and stuff.

all is well, Kevin. This isn't the political lounge (which I try to avoid like the racist plague it is).

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by analogika

all is well, Kevin.

Thanks

This isn't the political lounge (which I try to avoid like the racist plague it is).

Yes, I have been willfully banned from there for almost a year.

It's like it doesn't even exist to me.

Same ole same ole going on in there?

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by analogika

However, GEMA fees apply whenever music is used in a COMMERCIAL setting, i.e. when it is instrumentalized to make money.

No. GEMA fees apply whenever music is publicly played. It doesn't matter whether it is for commercial purpose or not. Let's say you have a non commercial public street party then you apply pay GEMA fees for example.

Originally Posted by analogika

Podcasting is a phenomenon that is changing the mediascape, and it is doing so only because ANYBODY can podcast without initial investment nor the need to actually make money.

Of course podcasters don't have a need to make money if they fill their podcasts with other people's work without rewarding them. If they'd use their own work they will quickly notice that it doesn't go without investment.

[alphasubzero949]

Originally Posted by Thorin

He always maintained that Backtracks and The Hit Test were 'fair use', so hopefully they'll continue. He always said that mashups were completely illegal anyway, so it's not that surprising he's dropping them now.

Actually he (Curry) warned podcasters not to even try to argue "fair use" as a precaution against getting unwelcomed communication from the RIAA.

I don't know about him deleting all of his music off of his hard drive...might be just a tad bit into the tin foil realm. The RIAA isn't going to break down doors looking for copyrighted music on hard drives just yet (then again, what's to stop them?).

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Well that is a no-brainer.
They really aren't comparable.

In scale? The thing about the scale is terrorism is harder to address. But the RIAA we can easily do something about.

[JoshuaZ]

So, as someone who is currently making a video podcast, what exactly are the limits to me using music in my podcast? Can I sample songs? Is there a time limit? No one likes being sued.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by goMac

In scale? The thing about the scale is terrorism is harder to address. But the RIAA we can easily do something about.

The RIAA isn't murdering people.

Yet.

[Thorin]

Originally Posted by alphasubzero949

Actually he (Curry) warned podcasters not to even try to argue "fair use" as a precaution against getting unwelcomed communication from the RIAA.

I don't know about him deleting all of his music off of his hard drive...might be just a tad bit into the tin foil realm. The RIAA isn't going to break down doors looking for copyrighted music on hard drives just yet (then again, what's to stop them?).

Yup - looks like I missed that bit. From Jan Polet's blog:

In total, together with my own podcasts, I’ve created 82 Hit Tests, used 262 tracks and it took me about 175 hours.

It was fun while it lasted, but now it’s over.

[anim8ing]

Originally Posted by The Internet

That's actually a Twice Baked Potato, but I'll give you 3 points for effort.