If you are a copyright owner and believe that your copyrighted works have been used in a way that constitutes copyright infringement, here is our DMCA Notice.

« This Week in Sex: Keep Your Hands Where I Can See Them | Main | Ted Leo re-writes "That's Entertainment" for WFMU »

March 15, 2007


Michael Turro

This is bad... but with a silver lining perhaps. My thoughts on why this is not as bad as it seems are here:
If anyone cares to look.

Steve PMX

This is bullshit. Just another attempt by 'Old White Dudes' to snuff evolving communications media/technology since they feel financially threatened. It's really not about *rights* - its about *money*. The RIAA is made up of 'Old White Dudes' - the kind of old white dudes who call the internet "interwebs" and make up the most computer-illiterate demographic in American society. These guys have the authority to make enormous sweeping decisions that could destroy a huge sector of non-commercial underground media outlets. This will not only hurt the broadcasters, but it will significantly limit the richness of diversity in content/programming we have access to. I'm all about Artists Rights, but lets deal with it rationally. Instead of going after independent broadcasters who are doing this out of love for the music/musicians - why not start by addressing internet/street bootleg CD vendors? Or the ever growing number of torrent sites and p2p filesharing sites that blatantly trade entire albums back and forth, with no consideration of artists rights/copyright.

Seriously, fuck Old White Dudes. They suck and they need to get a clue about how badly their fucking everything up for generations to come.

this pic from the Wired blog's story about this decision says it all!


Ditto on the "Old White Dudes" comment. Seriously, you can't wait until all these geezers with more power than what they deserve, who never "got" the Internet (and never will) begin to die out so they can leave the rest of us who believe in it alone.

If anything, this is a most certain sign that the RIAA and their obsolete business practices will (thankfully) not survive these "Old White Dudes". But how long will we have to wait for that?

Ken B

The RIAA has to be the most shortsighted outfit ever. But what exactly does all this mean for WFMU?


This site has info, a petition you can sign, and templates for writing your congressman/senators.

Station Manager Ken

Beto - This rate increase doesn't affect non-commercial stations anywhere near as severely as commercial outlets, but it's terrible news nonetheless. We've reduced our own potential liability by getting hundreds of record labels to sign waivers releasing us from the fees and restrictions of the DMCA. In the next few years, we'll also be working hard on the creation of the "Free Music Archive" which will contain thousands of music files which will be available for streaming or downloading, free of DMCA/RIAA fees and restrictions, by making use of waivers and Creative Commons licenses.



Ken, many thanks to you and all WFMU folks involved in these issues and strategies you've raised. With some effort, I'm convinced people can begin to sidestep and otherwise thwart many of these oppressive, destructive systems. I'm continually amazed by the cultural vitality and great ideas that spring from WFMU. I hope I can begin to be more productive myself toward these issues, and I hope more people
fuckin' wake up...

Vic Perry

Jeffersonic said it better than I will.

One of the best reasons to support WFMU is, uh, vive liberation! Not to be boring but: the 60-second song remix contest is political. Or as somebody didn't say, "intellectual property is theft." For an even bigger picture of what liberation from excessive copy-rights means, read:

and then pledge some more!


I just had a thought (and you know how dangerous that can be).

What if instead of charging fees to the Internet radio station, why not attach a fee to the one device that makes it all possible - the personal computer? After all, you can't listen to Internet Radio (or download, copy, and share MP3s) without a computer.

A modest fee - say even as much as 10% - added to the purchase price of a PC or motherboard will not be that huge compared to the entire price, but I think it could bring in a good deal of money for the RIAA to distribute amongst record companies.

They can bring in the MPAA and all the other video content producers as well, since they are dealing with many of the same issues.

It will probably be a lot more palatable when compared to their lawsuits on old ladies, kids, and dead people for "copying" music. It would completely eliminate all the arguing over the legal nitpicking about what constitutes "copying for personal use"

Of course, they couldn't make it retroactive, so the RIAA won't be too happy about that. But still, I think it's worth considering.


I did a post on this issue a few weeks back. The RIAA and their cohorts are really pushing the envelope this time!! The Intertnet is FREE and should always be kept as such!! The EFF has a lot to say about this matter as well. We pay to use the internet via DSL or Cable, why then should we be charged to stream music?? NOT!!! They need to keep their dirty little hands out of the Internet. This is just like the RIAA trying to sue XFM for people recording music that they have paid for on their portable players...


Adding an RIAA tax to computer equipment is not a good idea. It opens a whole new can of worms that is probably larger that the music can of worms. First, what machines get taxed? Will the Mac people cry foul because the Sun people do not get the tax? If the Sun people are taxed, will they cry foul because the mainframe people skate by? Then, when will the taxes stop? If the RIAA gets treated well, the MPAA will certainly follow, then the game people, then the news people, and soon everyone will want a tax. And then there are huge numbers of machines that will never play a note of music anyway, but would still get taxed.

The effects of such a tax would turn the computer industry upside down.

Steve PMX

The RIAA and affiliate "artists rights" organizations need to do what they are equipped to do. NOT shit on the liberties of internet broadcasters. NOT file suit against every 22-yr old college student swapping files with his bro. They should fight physical music media piracy on the street level and if they want to get involved with internet piracy, there's plenty of websites and individuals online who are selling bootleg DVDs and CDs. I understand they are honing in on the 'performance' aspect of Copyright law, but it's just a really weak argument that internet broadcasting is responsible for any significant lapse in revenue.


I wonder what would happen if internet radio programmers just ignored the RIAA?

Jason Arnold

Who really gets the money? Time for some tax or other smart lawyer to figure where the money really goes. This is a HUGH rate hike. Come on people. Stand together and fight the RIAA. Class action lawsuit for anything. Twice McDonalds has been sued for hot coffee. It can be done.
What about me? I make music. Do I get money from the RIAA, FUCK NO!!! I get the shaft, because I get no exposure to my audience because the RIAA took the Internet radio off the air. Local musicians should sue for lost profit due to there high rate hikes that we see no money from. Its a scam. FUCK YOU Copyright Royalty Board... copyright that!

The comments to this entry are closed.