Killing off the little guy (this time it\'s internet radio)
 

[ QUOTE ]

On March 1, 2007 the US Copyright Office stunned the Internet radio industry by releasing a ruling on performance royalty fees that are based exclusively on the number of people tuned into an Internet radio station, rather than on a portion of the station’s revenue. They discarded all evidence presented by webcasters about the potentially crippling effect on the industry of such a rate structure, and rubber-stamped the rates requested by the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America).

Under this royalty structure, an Internet radio station with an average listenership of 1000 people would owe $134,000 in royalties during 2007 - plus $98,000 in back payments for 2006. In 2008 they would owe $171,000, and $220,000 in 2009.

There is no way for a station with 1000 listeners to make that kind of money. That’s over $11 per listener per month in 2007. No Internet radio station currently operating comes even close to that kind of income. Also keep in mind that 1000 listeners is not a large number. Popular stations like Radio Paradise, SOMA, Digitally Imported, radioio, etc have many times that many listeners.

In other words, if they are allowed to stand these rates are a death sentence for independent Internet radio stations. The only stations that would survive would be those who can afford to operate at that kind of loss, such as AOL (who would owe over $20,000,000 in 2006, far in excess of their income from radio).
http://www.saveourinternetradio.com/about/


[/ QUOTE ]


This is how it works:

The state is the final arbiter in any dispute within it's territory. Including disputes that include themselves as a party.

This power reaps great benefits, because you can sell this power and grant special priviliges or enact laws that benefit a certain party over another party. And those who stand to benefit from this are willing to pay large amounts of money to get it.


A few examples of this:

* 'Anti-trust' laws - the tobacco industry. The state helps a few large firms establish a cartel who now control something in the order of 97% of the market
(lecture on the protectionist origins of anti-trust laws)

* Minimum wage laws - unions bribe for minimum wage laws, killing off competition of cheap labor

* Milk cartel - you cannot produce and sell milk under state regulated prices

* Sugar -
http://www.mackinac.org/media/images/2002/v2002-11a.gif

* And now: radio. The big businesses of pre-internet face a new kind of competition. They bribe the state for laws that make the new kind of competition worse off than themselves.


It's important to note that the consumer always loses. Whenever a section of the market is socialized, their choices go down, the prices go up, the quality goes down, the state grows in size, taxes go up; and they're a step further in the abyss of non-thinking because the fact that it's now a state controlled sector means that they have to believe in the virtue of it (as happened to education, healthcare, road-building, and so on).


This kind of mechanism is also called mercantalism, corporatism or state capitalism. The market anarchist views the core of the problem with the territorial monopolist. Because without the existence of the monopolist, businesses can only compete in the market and not through bribes and preferential treatment. Only through a (violent) monopolist can such costs ultimately be forked back over to the citizen.

Re: Killing off the little guy (this time it\'s internet radio)
 

Excellent post.

Re: Killing off the little guy (this time it\'s internet radio)
 

So, OP's stance is no copyright laws and no royalties?

Re: Killing off the little guy (this time it\'s internet radio)
 

Does this include internet radio stations that dont play music? Does this include podcasts?

Re: Killing off the little guy (this time it\'s internet radio)
 

I would think that Nielsio would like this decision. I would be willing to wager that record labels and internet radio stations could work out agreements so that the stations could pay less than the FCC price if they wanted you. If the FCC had sided with the internet radio stations, they could have paid an artificially low price. There is no reason why the record labels should have to give permission to the radio staions to play their songs at all, much less at a reduced price. The FCC decision actually increases market freedom.

Re: Killing off the little guy (this time it\'s internet radio)
 

[ QUOTE ]
There is no reason why the record labels should be able to prohibit the radio staions from play[b]ing their songs at all

[/ QUOTE ]

fyp

Re: Killing off the little guy (this time it\'s internet radio)
 

The question is, how would this be different without a government??

A private group (the RIAA) produces most of the music that people want, because they can afford to hire the best writers, equipment, performers, and distort promotions through shops they own and friends in the big media. These are all private companies.

Some of their buddies in the private media industries decide that they want to kill off small radio. So the RIAA decides they will require crippling royalties off startup radio stations, effectively killing them. At present, government is the only thing in their way. Now the government chooses not to intervene in the market, and you complain?? WTF????

Please explain precisely how this a government specific problem. How exactly is this problem solved under AC again?

Re: Killing off the little guy (this time it\'s internet radio)
 

[ QUOTE ]


Some of their buddies in the private media industries decide that they want to kill off small radio. So the RIAA decides they will lobby congress to pass legislation/regulation that will require crippling royalties off startup radio stations, effectively killing them.

[/ QUOTE ]

on fire with the fyps today

[ QUOTE ]
How exactly is this a government specific problem? How exactly is this problem solved under AC again?

[/ QUOTE ]

no government, no one to lobby

Re: Killing off the little guy (this time it\'s internet radio)
 

[ QUOTE ]
rubber-stamped the rates requested by the RIAA
rubber-stamped the rates requested by the RIAA
rubber-stamped the rates requested by the RIAA
rubber-stamped the rates requested by the RIAA
rubber-stamped the rates requested by the RIAA
rubber-stamped the rates requested by the RIAA
rubber-stamped the rates requested by the RIAA
rubber-stamped the rates requested by the RIAA
rubber-stamped the rates requested by the RIAA

[/ QUOTE ]

See that little statement, that means in AC-Land, the same exact thing would have happened.

The internet radio companies asked the FCC to force the RIAA to lower the prices. The FCC decided to NOT intervine. It would seem that the ACist would want the government to not intervine in market affairs.

Re: Killing off the little guy (this time it\'s internet radio)
 

Will,

Please think very carefully about this issue before responding again.

If private property and copyright laws exist under AC, and ACers claim they will and must, then your posts completely miss the point.

The government is not passing laws here that are crippling internet radio. It is ALLOWING something to happen that would happen anyway if the market was free. There are no laws stopping a private studio from selling its music to the small radio station at whatever pricing scheme it likes. The RIAA (an entirely private group) is asking permission of government to do something it COULD DO ANYWAY under the free market.

Please put some thought into your trollish FYPs, so that we can elevate the level of discourse. It will also help to stop you from looking like a clown.

Thank you.

Re: Killing off the little guy (this time it\'s internet radio)
 

[ QUOTE ]
The RIAA (an entirely private group) is asking permission of government to do something it COULD DO ANYWAY under the free market.

[/ QUOTE ]


How would they do it.

Re: Killing off the little guy (this time it\'s internet radio)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The RIAA (an entirely private group) is asking permission of government to do something it COULD DO ANYWAY under the free market.

[/ QUOTE ]


How would they do it.

[/ QUOTE ]

By saying "hey if you want to us our product this is what you are going to have to pay us"

Re: Killing off the little guy (this time it\'s internet radio)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The RIAA (an entirely private group) is asking permission of government to do something it COULD DO ANYWAY under the free market.

[/ QUOTE ]


How would they do it.

[/ QUOTE ]
If you don't believe in private property and intellectual property laws under AC, then disregard my comment. I was under the impression that ACists did, but perhaps I'm mistaken. If you do, I don't understand the question.

Re: Killing off the little guy (this time it\'s internet radio)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How exactly is this a government specific problem? How exactly is this problem solved under AC again?

[/ QUOTE ]

no government, no one to lobby

[/ QUOTE ]

No government, no NEED to lobby. The predators just go straight in for the kill.

Re: Killing off the little guy (this time it\'s internet radio)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The RIAA (an entirely private group) is asking permission of government to do something it COULD DO ANYWAY under the free market.

[/ QUOTE ]


How would they do it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Privatized "enforcement division"?

Re: Killing off the little guy (this time it\'s internet radio)
 

I think it should be pointed out that internet radio stations are already required to pay royalties. This is just a major increase.

Re: Killing off the little guy (this time it\'s internet radio)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Will,

Please think very carefully about this issue before responding again.

If private property and copyright laws exist under AC, and ACers claim they will and must, then your posts completely miss the point.

[/ QUOTE ]

I reject the bolded part of the claim. I don't think intellectual property and copyrights will stand up in an AC world, because I think they are way too expensive to enforce if you can't externalize the costs of enforcement on to other people (in this case taxpayers.) Fundamentally music and other intellectualy property is not scarce, and thus cannot fall under property rights.

[ QUOTE ]
The government is not passing laws here that are crippling internet radio. It is ALLOWING something to happen that would happen anyway if the market was free. There are no laws stopping a private studio from selling its music to the small radio station at whatever pricing scheme it likes. The RIAA (an entirely private group) is asking permission of government to do something it COULD DO ANYWAY under the free market.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure I have to respond to this part once we've cleared up my position, but anyway, the RIAA could say "we are owed royalties from internet radio" in a free market, but they could not enforce it. They need government to pass legislation making it illegal so that they can use the tools of government power to prosecute nonviolent, noncoercive offenders.

[ QUOTE ]
Please put some thought into your trollish FYPs, so that we can elevate the level of discourse. It will also help to stop you from looking like a clown.

[/ QUOTE ]

Purple monkey dishwasher.

Re: Killing off the little guy (this time it\'s internet radio)
 

[ QUOTE ]
the RIAA could say "we are owed royalties from internet radio" in a free market, but they could not enforce it. They need government to pass legislation making it illegal so that they can use the tools of government power to prosecute nonviolent, noncoercive offenders.

[/ QUOTE ]

Tort claims are unenforceable in AC?

Re: Killing off the little guy (this time it\'s internet radio)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the RIAA could say "we are owed royalties from internet radio" in a free market, but they could not enforce it. They need government to pass legislation making it illegal so that they can use the tools of government power to prosecute nonviolent, noncoercive offenders.

[/ QUOTE ]

Tort claims are unenforceable in AC?

[/ QUOTE ]

Under my interpretation intellectual property doesn't exist, so "violating" it cannot be a tort. Thus it falls into the same category as drug prohibition and prohibitions on sexual activity, things which would be similarly unenforceable (I should say extremely hard, and expensive, because hey, it's AC and people can do what they want.)

Re: Killing off the little guy (this time it\'s internet radio)
 

Too bad the MPAA and RIAA have changed the "fair use" standards and now have to resort to extortion and blackmail. I think they are trying to force everyone towards piracy, because they want to control the content on the web. They will start crying on how much money they have lost due to piracy and stop from admitting that they are putting out inferior products.

DRM will be either the death of the RIAA or the whole industry---remember Sony's attempt to protect its music last year.

Re: Killing off the little guy (this time it\'s internet radio)
 

Well, isn't that a major flaw of AC? Why dump billions into R&D when another company can just buy your product reverse engineer it, use those plans to make profit?

Re: Killing off the little guy (this time it\'s internet radio)
 

Azdesertrat,

and good riddance to them as well.

Re: Killing off the little guy (this time it\'s internet radio)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Well, isn't that a major flaw of AC? Why dump billions into R&D when another company can just buy your product reverse engineer it, use those plans to make profit?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, it's one of the few. It's mitigated by the fact that R+D will cost much much less when there isn't a huge FDA burden on these companies that are making the drugs, and further there's nothing that prohibits NDA's from being enforced. (You sign a contract saying you will not disclose information, you disclose it, you can be sued for violating a contract.)

But yeah, AC ain't perfect. Just a hell of a lot better than what we've got, and more stable than minarchy.

Re: Killing off the little guy (this time it\'s internet radio)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Azdesertrat,

and good riddance to them as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Amen

Hopefully they don't seek additional protections and get them from Congress either. That's what they have had to resort to lately.

Re: Killing off the little guy (this time it\'s internet radio)
 

[ QUOTE ]
I reject the bolded part of the claim. I don't think intellectual property and copyrights will stand up in an AC world, because I think they are way too expensive to enforce if you can't externalize the costs of enforcement on to other people (in this case taxpayers.) Fundamentally music and other intellectualy property is not scarce, and thus cannot fall under property rights.

[/ QUOTE ]
Fair enough. The economic problems with this model are a another thread, but your ideas are internally consistent. I'm interested if Nielso has the same ideas?

Re: Killing off the little guy (this time it\'s internet radio)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Azdesertrat,

and good riddance to them as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Amen

Hopefully they don't seek additional protections and get them from Congress either. That's what they have had to resort to lately.

[/ QUOTE ]

exactly. Phil, this is precisely what I'm talking about. RIAA relies on the government to enforce whatever royalty/penalties they decide to implement. Without government externalizing the costs of enforcement on the taxpayers RIAA couldn't afford it.

edit: because, of course, there are millions upon millions of "violators."

Re: Killing off the little guy (this time it\'s internet radio)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Too bad the MPAA and RIAA have changed the "fair use" standards and now have to resort to extortion and blackmail. I think they are trying to force everyone towards piracy, because they want to control the content on the web. They will start crying on how much money they have lost due to piracy and stop from admitting that they are putting out inferior products.

DRM will be either the death of the RIAA or the whole industry---remember Sony's attempt to protect its music last year.

[/ QUOTE ]

DRM?

Edit: I found it, but why is this the death or the RIAA?

Re: Killing off the little guy (this time it\'s internet radio)
 

DRM has turned many former purchasers of online music into downloaders of music, including myself. I actually have a personal preference to see the artists get paid when I listen to their song - but it's nothing more than that, just a preference. So I used Itunes music store for a while. But then I tried to change computers. HOLY COW it is incredibly restrictive on how you can use your music. Only five computers are allowed to play it, you can't move music off your ipod and on to the computer...

It's fundamentally an inferior product to what you can get for free. DRM has pushed many many people into allofmp3, bittorr***, what have you, simply because the music you get from downloading is...better.

Re: Killing off the little guy (this time it\'s internet radio)
 

[ QUOTE ]
RIAA relies on the government to enforce whatever royalty/penalties they decide to implement. Without government externalizing the costs of enforcement on the taxpayers RIAA couldn't afford it.


[/ QUOTE ]

Government exercises its enforcement powers on behalf of the people. Why shouldn't the people pay for it?

Re: Killing off the little guy (this time it\'s internet radio)
 

If you pi$$ off people enough, they will stop buying it. There is also the distribution channel---how do you get people to buy music, when they aren't able to hear or sample what's out there? If they pull any stunts like being able to pry in your computer and stuff like that, what group of people do you expect to keep buying music legitimately

If businesses are left on their own to run or rot, many more will rot than run, and that's just way the world is. When companies or industries are protected unjustifiably to protect them from their own failures, then there is complacency and business will fail for much longer. There was an earlier thread by someone here who posted on some of my favorite topics like the tariffs on sugar, etc.

Re: Killing off the little guy (this time it\'s internet radio)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
RIAA relies on the government to enforce whatever royalty/penalties they decide to implement. Without government externalizing the costs of enforcement on the taxpayers RIAA couldn't afford it.


[/ QUOTE ]

Government exercises its enforcement powers on behalf of the people. Why shouldn't the people pay for it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Corporations aren't voters and not people.

Re: Killing off the little guy (this time it\'s internet radio)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
RIAA relies on the government to enforce whatever royalty/penalties they decide to implement. Without government externalizing the costs of enforcement on the taxpayers RIAA couldn't afford it.


[/ QUOTE ]

Government exercises its enforcement powers on behalf of the people. Why shouldn't the people pay for it?

[/ QUOTE ]

It exercises its powers at the behest of the companies that make the most generous contributions to the campaign funds of various politicians. The people shouldn't have to pay for that kind of "representation."

Re: Killing off the little guy (this time it\'s internet radio)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Phil, this is precisely what I'm talking about. RIAA relies on the government to enforce whatever royalty/penalties they decide to implement. Without government externalizing the costs of enforcement on the taxpayers RIAA couldn't afford it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Of course, I consider this obvious. In your AC world it seems there are many costly laws and enforcements that governments provide that wouldn't exist in AC due to cost and the problem of funding. i.e. prisons, drug safety enforcement and review (perhaps partially provided by certifying bodies, but easily overcome with money, marketing and/or intimidation), covert operations, child protection agencies; laws to protect software, music, writing, inventions, motion pictures, and artwork; tariffs and subsidies.

I always assumed that ACers on this board recognized the natural right of an author/creator/inventor to protect his works, and the good it does for the economy. But I'm impressed that you recognize these things cannot be protected under AC.

[ QUOTE ]
It exercises its powers at the behest of the companies that make the most generous contributions to the campaign funds of various politicians. The people shouldn't have to pay for that kind of "representation."

[/ QUOTE ]
The US has an amazingly corrupt political system due to a very greedy and backward population and the way it concentrates power. If you guys want to claim that Somalia is a poor example of AC, you have to recognize that the US is a poor example of government and democracy.

Re: Killing off the little guy (this time it\'s internet radio)
 

Phil,

I'd add a few key things to your list of things that wouldn't probably wouldn't get provided by the free market - aggressive invasions of foreign countries and drug prohibition. HOLLA!

In regard the specific items on your list, prisons probably wouldn't be provided, but that doesn't mean other disincentives to violent crime couldn't be thought up. Dogs are good. Neal Stephenson had some great ideas in Snow Crash, like tattooing the bad thigns people have done on their forehead. That's a pretty quick, clean, and effective punishment. "DOESN'T PAY DEBTS" "RACIST, UNSTABLE." etc.

Drug safety enforcement already is provided by the free market - the kosher food certification is one example, and consumer reports can be said to be a broader example of organizations ensuring consumer safety. The market can provide that.

Covert operations would decrease a lot, yeah, and that's a good thing.

Child protection agencies...I really think that in the absence of government people would set up private agencies. People value children more than anything. I had some interesting ideas for a free market child protection service in a different thread, I'll see if I can go find it.

Laws to protect software, music, writing, inventions, etc...yeah, they just wouldn't work. Ideas aren't scarce.

tariffs and subsides, yeah, those would go away, but those suck and that's a good thing.

The US is a poor example of government and democracy? Then what's a good example? I mean, there are hundreds of democratic governments in the world, and I'd say that the US is probably one of the best ones. That's more a comment of how bad democracy is rather than how good the US is.

I say that Somalia flat-out isn't an example of AC because there is no capitalism in Somalia, because there is no culture of respect for property rights. Without such a culture of respect people will be poor - and they will be poor whether or not there is a state. AC isn't just about anarchy.

Re: Killing off the little guy (this time it\'s internet radio)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
RIAA relies on the government to enforce whatever royalty/penalties they decide to implement. Without government externalizing the costs of enforcement on the taxpayers RIAA couldn't afford it.


[/ QUOTE ]

Government exercises its enforcement powers on behalf of the people. Why shouldn't the people pay for it?

[/ QUOTE ]

The "people" on whose behalf the enforcement is exercised is different than the "people" who pay for it, of course. Your question should be, "why shouldn't the RIAA pay for it?"

Re: Killing off the little guy (this time it\'s internet radio)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In your AC world it seems there are many costly laws and enforcements that governments provide that wouldn't exist in AC due to cost and the problem of funding. i.e. prisons, drug safety enforcement and review (perhaps partially provided by certifying bodies, but easily overcome with money, marketing and/or intimidation), covert operations, child protection agencies; laws to protect software, music, writing, inventions, motion pictures, and artwork; tariffs and subsidies.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you think these are too expensive to be funded in a free market? Because people don't value them? If so, why *should* they be funded? Tarriffs and subsidies, for example, are flat-out corporate welfare. If *you* want to pay for that, go right ahead, I'll pass. On the other hand, I am in favor of funding private testing and review facilities (and I do, right now, in the status quo, voluntarily).

[ QUOTE ]
I always assumed that ACers on this board recognized the natural right of an author/creator/inventor to protect his works,

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure. Who said they didn't? But there's a difference between protecting your work and using coercive force; copyright, for example, is a voluntary contract - it only covers works that are developed based on the copyrighted work; patents, on the other hand, are involuntary, and if you independently invent something that someone else has patented, even if you have zero knowlege even of the existence of that patented item, you are infringing. That's a lot more than protecting your work, that's actively obstructing others' work.

[ QUOTE ]
and the good it does for the economy.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the least of my concerns. I can't speak for others, though.

[ QUOTE ]
If you guys want to claim that Somalia is a poor example of AC, you have to recognize that the US is a poor example of government and democracy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Somalia isn't *at all* an example of AC.

Re: Killing off the little guy (this time it\'s internet radio)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Excellent post.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Killing off the little guy (this time it\'s internet radio)
 

pvn,

you're responding to the wrong person. I'm not the one saying these things won't exist in AC land, Will is. Please direct your comments to him. In fact, I assumed that those things *would* exist in AC land. It was the basis for my argument, and Will corrected me. Did you read the thread??

[ QUOTE ]
Somalia isn't *at all* an example of AC.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's more of an example than a place with a functioning government, no? It's certainly an interesting case study of what the market can and can't do. You guys claim the market can solve anything and overcome any problem by supply and demand. Somalia is a partial case study in that. You think there isn't a large part of the population desiring security and order, and having the means to buy it? And yet the market has failed to supply it, despite obvious demand. But ultimately, you guys are going to claim that any country where lack of government causes civil war, a loss of property protection or a breakdown of order is not an AC country.

But I don't care if Somalia is AC or not. I'm simply pointing out the double standard here. You're taking a country where anti-corruption measures have broken down, and then call that a standard feature of government. And yet, when I mention a government-less, free market country where property rights have broken down, it's suddenly entirely not an example?

Nielsio, I apologize for the hijack. Interested in where you stand on the IP issue as it relates directly to the position in your OP.

Re: Killing off the little guy (this time it\'s internet radio)
 

[ QUOTE ]
pvn,

you're responding to the wrong person. I'm not the one saying these things won't exist in AC land, Will is. Please direct your comments to him. In fact, I assumed that those things *would* exist in AC land. It was the basis for my argument, and Will corrected me. Did you read the thread??

[/ QUOTE ]

Be careful, because you are miscontruing my position. I'm of the opinion that copyright won't exist...and in that I differ from PVN/Boro et al. But other than that, on child protective services, and consumer protections, I do think that they would exist in the free market, for sure.

Re: Killing off the little guy (this time it\'s internet radio)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Nielsio, I apologize for the hijack. Interested in where you stand on the IP issue as it relates directly to the position in your OP.

[/ QUOTE ]


I'll get back to it.