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

[Nielsio]

[ 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 -


* 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.

[pvn]

Excellent post.

[AngusThermopyle]

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

[ianlippert]

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

[iron81]

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.

[WillMagic]

[ 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

[Phil153]

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?

[WillMagic]

[ 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

[MelchyBeau]

[ 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.

[Phil153]

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.