Across the U.S. today, thousands of internet radio stations are observing a national Day of Silence to protest new webcasting rates set by the U.S. Copyright Royalty Board. These new rates, which will go into effect on July 15 (and are retroactive to January 1, 2006), will drastically increase the royalties webcasters must pay to SoundExchange, an offshoot of the RIAA responsible for distributing this money to artists.
WFMU believes in compensating artists. We currently pay webcasting royalties to SoundExchange and will continue to do so, but we are protesting the new rate scheme for a number of reasons:
1. Under the new rates, non-commercial webcasters only get a break on the commercial royalty rate if they maintain small listenership numbers. In order to afford the astronomical new rates, WFMU may have to cap online listenership on our streams, limiting the exposure we give to independent artists by blocking our accessibility to music fans.
2. SoundExchange has not been dutifully distributing webcasting royalties to musicians, claiming on their website that they are unable to locate thousands of artists including Kraftwerk, The Replacements, Pizzicato Five, The Muffs, and even Warren G!
Instead of webcasting silence today, WFMU has decided to boycott all music that is registered with the RIAA and/or SoundExchange. Today, you will hear songs from live performances on WFMU, material from the public domain, orphaned works, music from bands and record labels that have signed a waiver releasing WFMU from SoundExchange's unreasonable royalty scheme, and music from artists that SoundExchange has neglected to pay.
We hope that this sends the message that WFMU is fully capable of airing great music that falls outside of the RIAA and SoundExchange's control.
If you would like to protest the new webcasting royalty rates, please call or write to your Representatives and Senators before July 15, and tell them to support the Internet Radio Equality Act (S. 1353 and HR. 2060). Visit SaveNetRadio.org for more information, including a quick way to look up contact info for your elected officials.
A sad time for Internet radio. Personally, I would like to see your boycott extended, so that the RIAA never sees dime one. If enough radio stations just refused to play ball, they'd have no choice but to strike a bargain.
I mean: it's completely unrealistic to expect even one radio station to do that, but if the world suddenly stopped buying dog food, it'd get really cheap, really fast.
Posted by: Clayton | June 26, 2007 at 09:29 AM
Absolutely, you can play good music outside of the domain of SoundExchange. In fact, you _should_ be doing that. Why not support the bill, in fact, why not ask them to double or triple the rate? Make it impossible for any entity smaller than ClearChannel ( or whatever it calls itself these days ) to play that music. Then, _you_ will have a virtual monopoly on the internets ear. For will anyone really want to hear the rap stylings of newly released ex-con Paris Hilton on their clearchannel stream? I know I know, we'd probably all enjoy a track or two, but we have Banksy for that huh?
This bill could be the best thing for internet radio since fibre optic cable. Think about it.
Posted by: K | June 26, 2007 at 10:13 AM
I love WFMU's response to this boycott! It's like judo for the RIAA - we'll just have to get along without you, until you grow some sense.
Posted by: Vic Perry | June 26, 2007 at 10:47 AM
It's a good start, but why stop at one day? Go non-RIAA, at least until Jul 15. The world's full of great music untainted with the RIAA's corruption - heck, I'll pledge 100 hours of the stuff if it's wanted.
The RIAA is a selfish, anti-music obstacle to freedom of communication. We don't need it. We need to destroy it and to tell decent labels and performers to have nothing to do with it.
And let's have a Hall of Shame listing all the labels involved with this outfit. If we're going to boycott, let's do it properly, and not just for today!
Posted by: dave p | June 26, 2007 at 01:06 PM
If you cap the number of listeners on the streams let us know. I can practically see the transmitter from my window.
Posted by: bartelby | June 26, 2007 at 01:19 PM
[K said: "This bill could be the best thing for internet radio since fibre optic cable. Think about it."]
I was just saying that to a (today silent) pal at LA's Killradio. You're so right. To hell with corporate music, ours is far better. They want monopoly? Bad move, we can play too when it comes to taste.
Posted by: dave p | June 26, 2007 at 02:42 PM
I would love it if WFMU went RIAA-free permanently. I don't listen to WFMU to hear music I already know -- I listen to hear what I'd never hear anyplace else.
Posted by: treepour | June 26, 2007 at 03:42 PM
We're listeners of the wax cylinder program and a few other shows, but we old fogies appreciate your attitude. Agree that you should play non-RIAA music at least until July 15th. Everyone, contact your Washington reps supporting the Internet Radio Equality Act. Only takes a few moments!
Posted by: J and V | June 26, 2007 at 03:55 PM
Here's another thought for Station Manager Ken. Last time you folks did a fundraiser, my jaw dropped when I saw the totals. So you've got some ears out there. Now, along with a once yearly fundraiser, why not a once yearly music raiser. Musicians, want to get your stuff into 1000's of ear holes? Donate a track or two to WFMU! In exchange, FMU would promise to play it a few times. Let the DJ's hear all the donated tracks, and pick what they want. Perhaps do a roboshow for the rest. Community radio should be just as much about the musicians as the listeners.
Posted by: K. | June 26, 2007 at 04:06 PM
Love your music-raiser, K! Go for it, Ken & Co. There's awesome goodies out here just waiting for more ears. Let the rest of us chime in with our unsigned faves too, and take your pick - maybe a day every time the schedule changes.
Posted by: dave p | June 26, 2007 at 05:43 PM
Snopes has a couple of good pages commenting on the inefficacy of one-day boycotts, usually (but not always) arising in the context of Planet WalMart organizing one-day gas boycotts. See, e.g., their Politics/Gas/Nogas page. Also see their page on Not One Damn Dime Day. In this context, I fear that the collective sigh of relief as internet radio stations go back to normal programming tomorrow will be heard a lot more clearly by the RIAA than the momentary dip in their income stream. I agree that a more expanded version of today's, uh, format should be considered.
Having said that, I would add that the best thing that could happen to FMU and its partners in free-form would be if Cleanchannel felt its ox being gored. Frankly, the Internet Radio Equality Act would be passed and signed tomorrow if Cleanchannel, Warner, Viacom etc. felt that they had a lot to lose in the face of the Royalty Board rates. Sad to say, they will probably be able to absorb the new costs with only minimal damage, all of which will be passed along to the consumer.
Posted by: Parq | June 26, 2007 at 08:44 PM
~ Let's hear some responses from station personnel ~
Posted by: Bone | June 26, 2007 at 10:17 PM
The more they hit you guys hard, the more I will increase my financial support to FMU.
And one more ting: Bong Hits for Jesus
Posted by: Webster Hubble Telescope | June 27, 2007 at 01:22 AM
Greed, greed, greed! I recently watched "Some Kind of Monster" and was appalled by Metallica's drummer testifying about piracy, then the next scene he's viewing his extensive modern art collection he'd grown tired of, up for sale at Sotheby's. Wanker.
And one time I was in Kastro's, my local watering hole back in the mid 90's, and an ASCAP representative (or so he claimed) came in to shake down the bar owner for music royalties since he had a jukebox. C'mon!, the guy was selling libation, not music.
Capping 'FMUs stream shouldn't matter to anyone smart enough to use iTunes radio function, as you're streaming under the "eclectic" category.....No?
Posted by: Dale Hazelton | June 27, 2007 at 09:20 AM
This is the sign of a desperate dinosaur flexing it's flabby muscles. There is so much great music out there, so much compelling independent media that there's really no need to rely on "corporate" sources. As has been mentioned, this could be beginning of a true revolution! One where we truly do not consume the media, but BECOME IT, completely replacing the overpriced/overvalued/overrated and overwrought corporate mediocrity. As Terrence McKenna said, "we need to stop consuming culture; we need to CREATE culture." Time to stop sucking off the corporate tit.... Viva la revolution!
Posted by: norelpref | June 27, 2007 at 11:54 AM
I am curious how I can specify that the music I release is not subject to the RIAA and SoundExchange's rules. I suppose I could just print some sort of release on the packaging that states that the music can be played on non-commercial radio stations for free. Is there an organization that is pushing this type of idea?
Posted by: Listener Dave | June 27, 2007 at 03:34 PM
There's a thought - I recall this from the original ruling way back, but it seemed to have gone quiet until now: is ir the case that SoundExchange gets to charge webcasters for ALL music played, whether it's RIAA or not, and then it just keeps the undistributed $$$? And is there any opt-out provision? The whole business just gets more crooked the more you look into it. It's starting to look like the only solution's to stream as offshore pirates. But at least the RIAA's labels lost a day of airplay.
Posted by: dave p | June 27, 2007 at 04:51 PM
DAVE--> I've thought about developing a site like this. Basically a clearing house for artists to waive sound exchange fees. There is a fatal flaw: verification. What's to stop Elvis Presley from signing up on a web page asking to waive his fees. How can you really tell artists are who they say they are? Get a faxed signature? how do you know it's real?
Posted by: rupert | June 27, 2007 at 10:28 PM
I don't get it.
We're talking about webcasting rates, right? RIAA don't rule the world. If you route it through an offshore server, surely RIAA has no jurisdiction at all. Am I missing something?
Posted by: vmh | June 28, 2007 at 08:40 AM
VMH - yes, it is more complex than that, otherwise everybody would simply set up a server in Canada. If your service is based in the US, but you have server's based in other countries the RIAA still has the right to collect from you and they still have enormous power in shutting you down through a number of other means, including T1 circuits (how are you connecting to that off-shore server?), DNS, ISPs and plain old lawsuits.
-ken
Posted by: Station Manager Ken | June 28, 2007 at 10:19 AM
Right. If you have an illegal file sharing site hosted in Russia, but you are maintaining the site from within the U.S., you are risking prosecution. I'm not sure about whatever additional laws are in place with respect to taking such a business international, but I'm sure they exist, if only to deter people from trying.
Posted by: Clayton | June 28, 2007 at 12:39 PM
I *might* be able to understand them not locating members of Firewater, Tad, but Godflesh!? and Douglas Spotted Eagle, Peanut Butter Wolf, Photek, Uncle Kracker, Uberzone, W.A.S.P., Tarwater, To Rococo Rot, Biosphere and the kicker... Sir Mix-A-Lot!
And what about misspellings like Morecheeba (instead of Morcheeba) and Spring Heeled Jack (instead of Spring Heel Jack)??? ...are these artists' names they misspelled?
But what gives with listing Son House and Blind Willie Johnson??? Do they have estates? or are these Sound Exchange guys lacking some kinda proper music history educaitun.
Posted by: Jason | June 29, 2007 at 05:07 PM
Does anyone know when these bills are going to be voted on?
Posted by: Listener M | July 02, 2007 at 06:02 AM
well that stinks , you can play the bordellos as much as you like , we would not want a penny.or should i say dime.
Posted by: brian[bordellos] | July 04, 2007 at 07:27 PM
Question: If you're an artist and you don't want to be RIAA affliated, how do you do this?
And should artists not sign up for SoundExchange?
Will that make a difference?
I'd love some advice on this.
Thanks!
Posted by: R Mick | July 09, 2007 at 01:38 PM