Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Radio Free Nowhere
Depressing tale in LA's City Beat, of the Copyright Royalty Board/Library of Congress decision to hike music royalties high enough to strangle internet radio.
Up until March 6, webcasters figured their royalty payments as an affordable percentage of total revenues. In the case of KCRW, that was a negligible number for Seymour, since the entire NPR network had negotiated a flat fee and it was paid by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Maybe not anymore. Under the new system, which requires that Internet broadcasters pay per performance – meaning each time one person listens to one song – her new bill for 2006 went from essentially zero to about $350,000. And it’s going up. For each of the next four years, the rate goes up at least 30 percent every year.
“This is ridiculous,” she adds. “You’re getting an automatic increase, but then, if you get more listeners – which, of course, you hope you do – you’re paying more, too. If you can figure out how much you’re paying – that’ll probably be a full-time job!”
Guy Montag|3.23.07 @ 10:24AM|#
Wait, she is complaining that paying for content is too hard for
her crew to calculate?
Seems the broadcast journalist major's collective smugness toward
the business majors is coming home to roost :)
D.A. Ridgely|3.23.07 @ 10:31AM|#
Pardon me for not getting the vapors over this ruling. Here's,
IMHO, the money quote of the article:
"My real beef is: You have to make a distinction between
commercial and non-commercial. And it's absolutely unacceptable if
you don't," says Ruth Seymour, KCRW's longtime general manager.
"There wouldn't be any Public Broadcasting System if you didn't.
That difference is sorta ingrained on the federal level - except
with these guys! Who are purists, and believe that a song is a
song. But a song isn't a song. You cannot divorce the medium from
the message, if you will. And that's, in effect, what they've
done."
Golly, imagine NPR having to pay the same fees private, for-profit
stations are required to pay! Why, it's outrageous!
Now, we can argue about intellectual property in general and
copyright and royalties and blah, blah, blah or whether this is
some not-so-covert plot to keep internet radio from competing with
broadcast stations, but I still have a hard time coming up with a
single reason for the continued existence of PBS and NPR, and if
this helps shut them down I say, "Well done!"
|3.23.07 @ 10:39AM|#
I hope this puts internet radio out of business. What this country needs are fewer outlets for creative expression, not more. If we could have one single outlet controlled by the RIAA, CD sales would instantly jump to 1998 levels. Then the RIAA companies would have all kinds of money to develop new talent and everything would be great! The business majors have gotten music to this wonderful place where very few people want to buy RIAA music and American Idol is our collective A&R rep, what could possibly be wrong with that? Music is better now than ever, especially since Paris and Lindsay are in the mix.....
|3.23.07 @ 10:40AM|#
It's hard to see who wins if they set royalty rates so high that
the stations that would pay those rates go out of business
instead.
That said, it's pretty silly for KCRW to make this about public vs.
private. The real point is that this will strangle web radio, and
the diversity it offers, in the crib.
|3.23.07 @ 10:43AM|#
That's the point. The RIAA doesn't want outlets it can't control. It's much easier to lobby a governmental agency than it is to innovate.
Andyraz|3.23.07 @ 10:43AM|#
DAR,
Private, for-profit broadcast stations are not required to pay
these fees.
Guy Montag|3.23.07 @ 10:44AM|#
Golly, imagine NPR having to pay the same fees private,
for-profit stations are required to pay! Why, it's
outrageous!
I wonder if that general manager applies the same rule to her
labor? She seems fine with taking the labor of others for
nothing.
Or maybe I am making a bad assumption and everybody at NPR and CPB
work as unpaid volunteers?
Guy Montag|3.23.07 @ 10:46AM|#
Private, for-profit broadcast stations are not required to
pay these fees.
Are private, for profit, internet stations required to pay these
fees?
Fluffy|3.23.07 @ 10:46AM|#
Don't me distracted by the NPR person's statement.
The issue here isn't commercial vs. non-commercial.
It's whether internet radio stations should have to pay royalty
fees that are completely not paid by broadcast stations.
I think we're in a difficult area generally, because it's hard to
advocate for the government setting fiat royalty rates of any kind.
But if we're going to allow the state to set them, the least they
could do is set them fairly, or with the appearance of
fairness.
Dan T.|3.23.07 @ 10:47AM|#
I still have a hard time coming up with a single reason for
the continued existence of PBS and NPR
Perhaps because they provide high-quality programming?
Fluffy|3.23.07 @ 10:50AM|#
Dan -
I'm against government-sponsored radio for the same reason I'm
against a government-sponsored church.
I bet some churches might have really nice music and real purty
pictures, but the cultural benefit of that "high-quality
programming" isn't really relevant.
Guy Montag|3.23.07 @ 10:51AM|#
I think we're in a difficult area generally, because it's
hard to advocate for the government setting fiat royalty rates of
any kind. But if we're going to allow the state to set them, the
least they could do is set them fairly, or with the appearance of
fairness.
I can agree to that, if you drop "appearance".
ed|3.23.07 @ 10:53AM|#
It's my understanding that artists who own their own recordings may continue to offer their music royalty-free to any entity they choose. This would include all internet sites that play unsigned indies -- you know, those sites that Lamar says will go out of business; the same sites that aid and abett "creative expression" and unusual and experimental stuff that Lamar fears will disappear. In reality, and ironically, it's the more mainstream internet sites, playing the more mainstream (signed) artists, who are getting hit with the bill. The other sites have nothing whatsoever to fear. They also have their share of crappy music, but that's another story.
Not VM. Nope. No Way.|3.23.07 @ 10:53AM|#
commercial or not
today's radio lacks soul
pandora's better
Guy Montag|3.23.07 @ 10:53AM|#
Perhaps because they provide high-quality
programming?
You say that as if no private sector stations could possibly do the
same thing. I hear that about PBS too, when I am not watching
Discovery, TLC, History, Military, or HGTV.
|3.23.07 @ 10:54AM|#
if they really want to be fair, then NPR and internet radio should get payola from indies like regular radio stations do.
D.A. Ridgely|3.23.07 @ 10:55AM|#
RTFA, folks.
Oh, and Dan T., if there is a sufficient demand for such high
quality programming, it doesn't have to be subsidized.
|3.23.07 @ 11:00AM|#
and Discovery, HGTV, and TLC no longer provide high-quality programming and are now dominated by reality TV and thinly-disguised advertising. Tonight's TLC lineup: Flip That House, Flip That House: Updated, Take Home Chef, and What Not to Wear.
|3.23.07 @ 11:00AM|#
This is a whole group of fees that internet broadcasters pay
that radio broadcasters don't have to.
It is part of RIAA's ongoing luddite crusade against digital
anything.
I used to buy a lot of music. I don't anymore, and I don't download
or swap MP3s either.
Between the homogenous, out of date, crap that clear channel and
the rest of broadcast radio stations provides and the riaa efforts
to strangle internet radio it is not easy to discover new music.
You just don't hear it these days.
Those ignorant folks at the RIAA apparently expect people to go
into a music store and buy CDs at random. Because you sure can't
hear a fraction of the music available before you buy it. You used
to be able to on the internet with streaming radio stations but the
RIAA is killing that.
RIAA is cutting their own throat while acting like a bunch of
%^^$&. CD sales were down 20 % this year and I hope those
*&$^%# continue to choke on declining sales and have a bigger
decline next year. Miserable *&^%)& that they are.
Guy Montag|3.23.07 @ 11:01AM|#
DAR,
(not answering for anybody else here)
if there is a sufficient demand for such high quality
programming, it doesn't have to be subsidized.
You must remember, the general sheeple are not bright enough to
know what is good, so we need NPR to provide it for the people who
know what quality really is. Sort of like that music that nobody
listens to, but is superior to what is in the "middle" of the
dial.
Just ask anybody at WBAI or the rest of the Pacifica Network (yes,
they receive public funding too, and deny it endlessly)
|3.23.07 @ 11:02AM|#
ed:
In what bizarre little twisted world does "indie rock = creative
content"? Have the Yo La Tengo fans fooled you with their glasses?
Last I checked, indie rock was just as much about tits and ass as
RIAA music, just wearing different colors and denying it. Don't
fool yourself into thinking you have any idea about my musical
preferences. The day indie rock saves anything will be the day the
dinosaurs come back. Oh yeah, perhaps you might want to know that
most "indie" labels are RIAA affiliated, so you whole post is
moot.
D.A. Ridgely|3.23.07 @ 11:02AM|#
It is part of RIAA's ongoing luddite crusade against digital
anything.
Thank goodness I never bothered to switch from analog LPs to
digital CDs then!
|3.23.07 @ 11:02AM|#
DAR: And ask Brittany Spears about quality music. If its in the middle of the dial, it must be good!!!!!
Dan T.|3.23.07 @ 11:03AM|#
Regarding radio, I get the feeling that a lot of nostalgia for the "good old days" is just that. I mean, the radio stations of the 70's and 80's were basically playing the cheap crap of their day just like today's does.
|3.23.07 @ 11:04AM|#
Dan T,
NPR sole purpose in life is to kill any liberal talk radio outlets
(air america) that try and establish themselves.
Why listen to commercial liberal radio when you can get the same
thing on NPR with better production and no commercials?
Guy Montag|3.23.07 @ 11:04AM|#
Well, Malcom was posting as I was writing. Somehow, he was able
to pick out the shows that I avoid on thise channels and pretend
that is all that they show.
Oh, I forgot the SPEED Channel.
So, we need PBS to please Malcom? Maybey you need to make a
donation?
ed|3.23.07 @ 11:04AM|#
it is not easy to discover new music. You just don't hear it
these days
It has never been easier, actually.
D.A. Ridgely|3.23.07 @ 11:06AM|#
Dan T., yeah, well, you know, I mean, like, um... how about a good reason?
|3.23.07 @ 11:06AM|#
You are so wrong, ed. Oh wait, my bad. I thought you were making a bullshit statement, but now I see you ended your sentence with "actually." Well, I'm convinced.
|3.23.07 @ 11:07AM|#
If PBS's main franchise is Sesame Street, why can't the merchandize from the show subsidize PBS? Or does it already? See ed, when we have no idea what we're talking about, we indicate as much.
|3.23.07 @ 11:08AM|#
D.A Ridgley,
Thank you for being pedantic:-) Let me rephrase my statement.
It is part of RIAA's ongoing luddite crusade against digital
anything that can be distributed in digital form over the
internet.
There, is that better?
ed|3.23.07 @ 11:09AM|#
The day indie rock saves anything will be the day the
dinosaurs come back
By "indie", Lamar, I mean just that: independent. And who said
anything about "saving" music? Independent artists (and other
humans) are not asking for anyone's help. They and we don't require
"saving". Careful now -- all that straw you're playing with may
ignite.
|3.23.07 @ 11:11AM|#
TJIT is right because the battle is about control of outlets. Digital outlets can't be controlled, and internet outlets are more difficult to control. Whichever side you take on government enforcement of IP, it is difficult to say that control of outlets isn't the issue. Without control of the outlets, all the rest is just PR blather, on both sides of the issue.
dhex|3.23.07 @ 11:12AM|#
dude, pandora is retarded. i put in lightning bolt. (two piece
noise rock outfit that will rip your eyebrows off live) it plays 3
lightning bolt songs and then gives me a whole slew of really bad
queens of the stone age esque pop stoner metal (think van halen
meets uh, queens of the stone age)
like what? WHAT? WHAAAAAt.
no.
dhex|3.23.07 @ 11:17AM|#
"Between the homogenous, out of date, crap that clear channel
and the rest of broadcast radio stations provides and the riaa
efforts to strangle internet radio it is not easy to discover new
music. You just don't hear it these days."
i have to disagree. if anything it's too easy. there are mp3 blogs,
there are dozens of snotty asshats like me who are more than happy
to tell you what to check out, etc. (for starters, not hella. they
suck)
this isn't even counting p2p groupings. soulseek has given me
dozens of breezeblock and betalounge recordings i would not have
been able to get otherwise, so i have live sets from some of my
favorite dudes and dudettes that inspires me to peep other new
stuff, etc.
|3.23.07 @ 11:18AM|#
Ed,
I appreciate your ability to know where I lived and how I have been
able to listen to music for all of my life.
I also appreciate your ability to understand where I live currently
and what access I have to new music both in digital and broadcast
format.
Given your spooky ability to discern all of this I suggest you
apply for work at the CIA or NSA. They will appreciate and have
good use for your talents.
However, I would suggest that you don't use this talent too much
outside of the CIA or NSA. It tends to make you look like a know it
all blow hard.
Cheers,
TJIT
Dan T.|3.23.07 @ 11:19AM|#
Dan T., yeah, well, you know, I mean, like, um... how about
a good reason?
You mean a reason that you'll accept? That might be a tall
order.
How about this: because the citizens of the USA have decided that
they want it and have expressed that view through their elected
representatives?
Remember that voting is a market where everybody has the same
amount of money.
D.A. Ridgely|3.23.07 @ 11:19AM|#
TJIT:
Yes, actually, it is. Thanks. See, I think intellectual property
owners should be entitled to protect their property, set the fees
they seek and the market will pay for its use, etc. Now, we can
discuss whether, for example, RIAA is a monopoly and how the legal
system should respond to monopolies (hint: I'd say the response to,
say, a monopoly on water should be different from a monopoly on pop
music), and if so whether it is a vertical or a horizontal monopoly
or oligopoly (think SONY here, a notoriously anti-technology
company, right?) and whether these "Luddites" are conspiring to
favor broadcasters over internet stations, etc., etc. All fair
game.
But, hey, if I were really pedantic I'd take you to task for
misspelling my name. [smile]
D.A. Ridgely|3.23.07 @ 11:20AM|#
How about this: because the citizens of the USA have decided
that they want it and have expressed that view through their
elected representatives?
Oh, I see, kinda like antebellum slavery then, huh? Okay.
|3.23.07 @ 11:22AM|#
ed,
"Indie" is like the word "alternative." It may have once meant its
literal meaning, but now it is a term of art. It denotes a genre of
music.
Also, I didn't say that any specific genre (or description of the
production values of certain musical instrument players, as you
like it) needed saving. The music industry as a whole, if I'm not
mistaken, has had a few bumps and bruises lately. I'd like to see
the industry rebound, which I guess is against your definition of
"independent."
Dan T.|3.23.07 @ 11:23AM|#
Oh, I see, kinda like antebellum slavery then, huh?
Okay.
Um, wasn't slavery a free-market situation that was put to end by
the government?
|3.23.07 @ 11:27AM|#
"See, I think intellectual property owners should be
entitled to protect their property, set the fees they seek and the
market will pay for its use."
So we can agree that when the government does it, it works out
poorly?
dhex|3.23.07 @ 11:28AM|#
"It denotes a genre of music."
not in this context it dun't.
besides, the industry ate itself to death and in the end, this will
probably be a good thing. right now, however, it's ugly, especially
on the production side. (sony studios sold out in nyc, the hit
factory went condo, and battery is shutting down at least half of
its facility and having a fire sale, last i heard)
but that's good news for my friends, who run a mid sized studio.
they get a lot more clients now who don't have to pay 1000 bucks a
day for just a b room.
D.A. Ridgely|3.23.07 @ 11:29AM|#
Um, wasn't slavery a free-market situation that was put to
end by the government?
Sure, but prior to that time it was a market enforced and protected
by the very same government. Just another case of the tyranny of
the majority: in principle, no different from forcing me to
subsidize your enjoyment of NPR.
Lamar:
Sure.
|3.23.07 @ 11:32AM|#
D.A. Ridgely,
I agree with you that intellectual property owners are entitled to
protect their property. I'm not a napster / bit torrent, file
swapping person.
What I am tired of is the RIAA and MPAA reflexive effort to kill
any new technolgy for distributing their intelectual property. This
is an old habit of theirs and I think their ongoing efforts to
croak new technology ends up costing them and their artist much
sales potential.
Did I get your name right this time?
TJIT
|3.23.07 @ 11:37AM|#
How about this: because the citizens of the USA have decided
that they want it and have expressed that view through their
elected representatives?
You see, it wasn't a "Bridge to Nowhere", because the citizens of
the United States decided they wanted it and expressed that view
through their elected representatives.
Dan T.|3.23.07 @ 11:40AM|#
Sure, but prior to that time it was a market enforced and
protected by the very same government. Just another case of the
tyranny of the majority: in principle, no different from forcing me
to subsidize your enjoyment of NPR.
I suppose any law, in principle, is tyranny of the majority. But I
think the term "tyranny" loses its bite when it's applied towards
any type of social arrangement.
|3.23.07 @ 11:45AM|#
Whether we're talking about indie (the genre - have you all been
asleep for 10 years?) or the description of a bands status, isn't
really relevant. Neither are going to save the industry. Though I
can now see that the term "unsigned indies" is redundant, it
doesn't change the fact that artists who don't affiliate with the
RIAA have significantly less outlet options than RIAA artists. Some
of this is due to money and some due to lobbying the government and
even some of it is due to suing innovative companies for the
transgressions of the consumer.
Oh yeah, the term "indepedent" really has no meaning in this
context because independent artists can range from someone trying
like hell to get into the RIAA to somebody who should probably be
trying to get into rehab.
But hey, my whole point was that the RIAA wants to shut down
outlets it can't control, and it will use any government agency it
can to accomplish such a goal.
dhex|3.23.07 @ 11:52AM|#
we all agree with your final point (i presume) it's just more
fun to quibble.
believe it or not, there are plenty of indie folks who make a
decent life for themselves outside the RIAA's radar. (there are
also plenty who struggle and get fucked over by people who download
but don't buy or go to shows, etc)
and now for some classic steve albini essay writin'!
http://www.negativland.com/albini.html
Rollins fan|3.23.07 @ 11:58AM|#
http://www.harmonyinmyhead.com/
http://indie1031.fm/
http://www.gemm.com/
|3.23.07 @ 12:00PM|#
Um, wasn't slavery a free-market situation that was put to
end by the government?
Ummm, you really don't have any concept of a what a free market is,
do you?
lunchstealer|3.23.07 @ 12:09PM|#
I'm kind of getting to a point where I don't even support IP rights at all any more. RIAA and MPAA are just so far out there that the only solution may be to kill it off entirely. End patents and copyrights altogether. In the modern age they're causing more harm than good.
ed|3.23.07 @ 12:11PM|#
Sure. I mean, who really needs property rights anyway? Besides, the, um, property-holders.
|3.23.07 @ 12:13PM|#
I'll leave the Rollins web site to those who already buy into
his star power.
103.1 pushing the Artic Monkeys. Very, very indie. Though the site
isn't entirely terrible, it appears to be more concerned with
Mountain Dew drinking, snowboarders than, uh, music.
Gemm.com: the first record to come up was Mario Lanza's "The
Student Prince." #1, I already own it. #2, not very indie or
independent, #3, the rest are RIAA acts.
|3.23.07 @ 12:16PM|#
ed: thanks for the clueless one liners. Here's my entry to the
asinine ed-ism of the day:
Who needs intellectual property except the intellectuals!!!!
Pithy and stupid. Do I win?
Dan T.|3.23.07 @ 12:17PM|#
Ummm, you really don't have any concept of a what a free market is,
do you?
Perhaps you don't. Unless you think slavery was a socialist
institution.
Guy Montag|3.23.07 @ 12:19PM|#
Rush is explaining this right now on his show.
On his 'net stream, he stopped playing music during commercial
breaks and plays parodies. The broadcast still has music
bumpers.
Seems these price gougers lost one of the largest internet
audiences out there.
Guy Montag|3.23.07 @ 12:21PM|#
I'm kind of getting to a point where I don't even support IP
rights at all any more. RIAA and MPAA are just so far out there
that the only solution may be to kill it off entirely.
I support the right, just not some of their representitives.
Kinda like my take on unions. Fine to join any club you want, but
when the leaders start thinking more about promoting themselves
than the people they represent I chose not to associate with their
club.
Too bad the feds can't adopt the Montag standard.
|3.23.07 @ 12:24PM|#
"I support the right, just not some of their
representitives.
Kinda like my take on unions. Fine to join any club you want, but
when the leaders start thinking more about promoting themselves
than the people they represent I chose not to associate with their
club."
I support two entire paragraphs from Guy Montag. All before
1pm.
|3.23.07 @ 12:34PM|#
Dan T., yeah, well, you know, I mean, like, um... how about
a good reason?
Public radio does provide much better local coverage of news and
events and goings on.
WTTW-11 Chicago provides quite a few Chicago/Illinois-centric shows
(Chicago Tonight, Wild Chicago, Chicago Matters, Chicago Stories,
Arts across Illinois, Check Please) and provide a lot of local
perspectives and coverage of issues that are important to the
community. Most other radio stations and braodcast networks don't
either because they are national, or can make more money off of
less localized programming
They also provide educational info that you would be niche on other
stations that might not have great commercial appeal.
If private radio can do the same, why haven't they produced
something like Frontline.
I'm not gonna pretend that everything they produce would be
unavailable anywhere else, but to act like they provide no value
and have no valid reason to exist is beyond stupid.
|3.23.07 @ 12:35PM|#
If private radio can do the same, why haven't they produced
something like Frontline
Err ...private radio should be "private broadcast stations"
|3.23.07 @ 12:35PM|#
and Discovery, HGTV, and TLC no longer provide high-quality
programming and are now dominated by reality TV and
thinly-disguised advertising. Tonight's TLC lineup: Flip That
House, Flip That House: Updated, Take Home Chef, and What Not to
Wear.
Meanwhile tonight's offering from PBS is a 12-hour begathon
featuring such intellectual beacons as Suze Orman and her guide to
turning a million in real estate into $250 cash, a 1-hour lesson on
becoming a piano virtuoso using only your ass cheeks, capped off by
a compendium of 50's nostalgia acts performing their biggest hits
all without a single original member of the group.
|3.23.07 @ 12:42PM|#
Unless you think slavery was a socialist
institution.
Pretty much confirms it for me.
Hint: it does not have to be "socialist" to not be a free
market.
To everyone else: Yeah, I know don't feed the troll. I'm sorry, I'm
just amused by his trollishness. Oops, that actually probably makes
me a troll. hehehe
Fluffy|3.23.07 @ 12:47PM|#
Dan -
Actually, slavery may not have been a socialist institution, but it
certainly wasn't a free market institution.
Systems where some participants have vastly different economic
rights as a result of government action and not market forces
aren't "free markets". You may as well say that serfdom was a free
market institution. Slavery required the state to assign persons to
different classes with different economic and political rights and
then enforce those differing rights with state violence. Maybe
"feudalistic" is the best way to describe it?
Also, it's generally conceded by most freedom-loving people that it
is, in fact, tyrannical for a state to tax the citizenry to support
the promulgation of religious beliefs they don't share. And here's
the thing: it's impossible to actually delineate what constitutes
"religious belief" without arbitrarily establishing religion in
exactly the way we're not supposed to; it's also impossible to
supply any really good reason why religious belief is different
from political, philosophical, aesthetic, etc., belief and what
makes it so unique that it requires unique protection. And if you
can't do those two things, I don't see how to avoid concluding that
it's just as tyrannical to take tax money from citizens to support
a radio station as it is to support a church.
|3.23.07 @ 12:57PM|#
Um, wasn't slavery a free-market situation
No. Slavery is not by definition a "free market" anything. Its very
basis is theft and the use of force. This is not rocket
science.
|3.23.07 @ 1:07PM|#
Of course slavery wasn't a free market situation. The government said that humans were property, and therefore they were. Sort of the same foundation as IP. Clearly, slavery was never a fundamental right and never should have been an enumerated right.
D.A. Ridgely|3.23.07 @ 1:08PM|#
I'm not gonna pretend that everything they produce would be
unavailable anywhere else, but to act like they provide no value
and have no valid reason to exist is beyond stupid.
Ah, well, claiming no value and claiming no valid reason to exist
as a tax subsidized entity are two quite different things.
I like listening to NPR news, too, and I wouldn't for a moment
argue that the programming PBS and NPR have built its reputation on
has no value. Providing content for PBS can be a fabulously
profitable venture. But the shows that do profit as such by using
PBS and NPR (including, e.g., Frontline) could indeed be sold to
the for-profits. The rest? [Shrug] Look, some people like opera and
some don't. But no one who doesn't like opera should have to
subsidize those who do. Same thing for public broadcasting.
|3.23.07 @ 1:11PM|#
I love how people rag on PBS because it gets government money, and then use its fundraisers in highlighting how crappy the programming is. If you hate gov't money going to PBS, you should applaud (but under no circumstances are you to watch) whatever god-awful programming they use to raise money.
Dave W.|3.23.07 @ 1:39PM|#
I'm kind of getting to a point where I don't even support IP
rights at all any more. RIAA and MPAA are just so far out there
that the only solution may be to kill it off entirely. End patents
and copyrights altogether. In the modern age they're causing more
harm than good.
Patents and copyrights are fine. The problem with copyrights are
the MPAA and the RIAA and that is what should be ended. There was
no problem with copyright until those organizations came to be what
they are today. You want to kill the wrong thing.
What problem have patents ever caused you, btw? Were you afraid for
5 minutes that someone might take your Blackberry? Pharmaceutical
patents may have gotten out of control, but as to other patents,
what is the skin off of your nose?
|3.23.07 @ 1:40PM|#
Ah, well, claiming no value and claiming no valid reason to
exist as a tax subsidized entity are two quite different
things
Yes they are, but you didn't make any such claim. You said :
I still have a hard time coming up with a single reason for the
continued existence of PBS and NPR
I don't see any mention of subsidization in your statement. So
don't demand nuance that you aren't willing to provide,
yourself.
As to your issue about whether tax dollars should go to public
broadcasting, last I checked there are quite number of
objectionable things that our tax dollars go to despite what many
of us would prefer. Using tax dollars to support localized
community programmings is one of the least offensive -- and
arguably a more valid use of the monies. When I can choose to not
fund the war on drugs, agricultural subsidies, foreign aid or pie
in the sky missile defense programs and divert my money to PBS
instead, then maybe I'll worry about whether or not PBS shouldn't
be getting tax dollars from those who don't want to support it.
|3.23.07 @ 1:57PM|#
Dave W.
I don't know if there are any concrete examples, but the
fear is that a company will purchase all the patents so
that there can be no competing products.
Then there are the patent trolls, which also grab headlines.
D.A. Ridgely|3.23.07 @ 1:57PM|#
ChicagoTom:
You have a point, up to a point, but my point stands. The
subsidized entities I was referring to were PBS and NPR. There is
no reason for them to continue to exist as such, assuming there
ever was, in a media market begging for content. I have no qualms
about some of the programs they air, which is really a separate
issue, because the good ones would find other venues. I would have
no qualms about PBS and NPR continuing to exist without
tax subsidies -- they can beg for audience and corporate
contributions all they want, for all I care -- but there is no
defensible basis for a continuation of the status quo. However
lacking in clarity I may have been, that was my point in the first
place.
As to your second point, my old Left2Right sparring partner,
philosopher David Velleman, used to call such comments
"whataboutery." Sure, tax subsidies to public broadcasting is chump
change and there are much bigger fish to fry (how's that for a
mixed metaphor!) but we're talking about public broadcasting, not
the war, foreign aid, etc. So, to put it more tersely, your second
point is irrelevant.
|3.23.07 @ 1:57PM|#
The government said that humans were property, and therefore
they were. Sort of the same foundation as IP.
And real property. Don't forget that all real property was
initially a grant from the sovereign.
Dave W.|3.23.07 @ 2:02PM|#
Then there are the patent trolls, which also grab
headlines.
I never understood that patent trolls term. Was Edison a patent
troll? Tesla? The Wright Bros.?
If a patent troll is one who brings frivolous patent litigation,
then i would ask how you know it is frivolous. Have you ever read a
patent "claim?" (they are difficult to follow). Have you ever
attempted to read "prior art" on a patent claim? If not, I am not
sure how one would know which patent litigation was frivolous and
which not (although I suspect many people just trust the newspapers
on that characterization.)
As far as patent pooling (eg, fear of one cartel buying all the
patents), that is an antitrust violation. Just like the MPAAA. Just
like the RIAA. Once again, the remedy is to bust the trust, rather
than the patent system.
|3.23.07 @ 2:06PM|#
RC Dean:
1000's of years ago your testicles would have been a grant from the
sovereign. I'm not sure that line of reasoning holds up.
Dave W.:
The idea of a patent troll isn't based on frivolous litigation. It
is based on the idea that one can purchase patents then seek out
potential infringers. Many times the litigation is non-frivolous.
The point is that patent trolls don't further the justification for
patent restrictions.
Frivolous litigation is a whole other issue, but that debate isn't
limited to IP.
Dave W.|3.23.07 @ 2:23PM|#
The point is that patent trolls don't further the
justification for patent restrictions.
Sure they do. If you are an individual or a small company, then
your expertise is making new technology, not litigation.
Making new technology can be a low overhead, low capital investment
thing. It requires a lot of math / science aptitude, but not
neccessarily verbal or juridical acumen. Even getting your US
patent will only cost you ten or twenty thousand dollars. Peanuts
really.
Suing on a patent, especially a pioneering one is a horse of a
different color. You need to not only pay lawyers who think really
well, in legal terms, but also to think like a lawyer yourself to
assess risks and make executive decisions about the litigation.
More importantly, the required capital investments are huge. What I
am saying is that expertise is required, and it is a very, very
different expertise than the expertise of a great inventor.
So, it makes sense in a division of labor way for small companies
to outsource patent litigation. Same reason any company outsources
any function -- to get the work done in a better and more cost
effective way. Big companies have sophisticated in-house legal
departments. Little companies don't and shouldn't. it is a boon
that they can still make some (discounted, of course) money of
their patents by selling them.
It should also be kept in mind that "patent trolls" are generally
willing to license at a fair price. Litigation only happens when
the license offer is refused, generally speaking. Of course, it can
be hard for a large company to decide when to license and when to
force a lawsuit -- which is yet another reason that small
companies, without that expertise, should not be making those
decisions on the patentee side. Not only that, but when a "patent
troll" has more than one patent, they can better decide which to
fight hard on, and which need to be relegated to the "going real
cheap" file. Some patents deserve to have someone fighting
them hard. This decision is going to be made more efficiently by
someone who has a decent sized patent portfolio, then by a company
that does not.
Furthermore, it is not like the inventors don't get paid. They sell
to patent trolls because it is sometimes the only way they can get
paid.
Finally, a have started a patent blog:
http://fedcirpatentcaseblurbs.blogspot.com/
If you read my case blurbs (a lot less complicated than the cases
themselves), ask yourself what a phD in physics or chemical
engineering would make of my case notes. Smart scientists are
smart, for sure, but do they really have the particular kind of
expertise to do well in patent court?
|3.23.07 @ 2:28PM|#
To clear up a point of fact:
Internet radio royalties have become a thorny issue in part because conventional stations do not pay to use recordings. Both online and regular stations pay royalties to songwriters. But under a 1995 law, companies that transmit music using the Internet, cable or satellite must compensate both. The money is split between the owner of the recording, usually the label, and the performers. - New York Times, March 19, 2007
Perhaps the RIAA doesn't care so much about FM radio's analog signal, but digital broadcasting is starting up, under the slogan HD Radio. Are they going to demand that the same radio stations that now get a free ride on performance royalties have to pay when they go over-the-air digital? Fair's fair, right?
Routing the digital output of an HD Radio receiver to one's computer would seem to me to be a trivial technical feat, and while any permanent files created might not be as rich as one could expect from a high-bitrate stream over broadband, they ought to be close enough for rock n' roll. The P2Pers who aren't maniacal audiophiles won't care.
People get sloppy with nomenclature when discussing stations associated with "public radio." Many of the affiliates of PBS and NPR are licensed to governmental bodies, such as state broadcasting boards, government colleges and school districts, but quite a few of those licenses are held by private universities and private non-profit organizations. The government licensees raise cash from private sources, while most of the private stations avail themselves of at least some aid from the taxpayers. Many of the big name PBS stations are not government-owned: WNET, WGBH and WETA come to mind. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting claims it is a private non-profit, though it depends on federal funds for most of its budget. I guess it's a "private corporation" the way the Postal Service is.
I don't dislike non-commercial broadcasting per se. My town has a great non-NPR FM that is owned by the local private engineering college, operated by students and community volunteers, and, AFAIK, doesn't get a penny of tax money. The school district's station just changed formats, contracting out the operation of the outlet to a foundation especially created to provide an alternative to standard radio fare. The fully "professionalized" radio oiand TV stations are still commercial in this sense: the on-air talent, independent producers and paid staff are all making a living at what they are doing, just as they would if their employers or clients were for-profit enterprises. If station WLEF, a non-profit, has an annual budget of $10 million, while commercial competitior KRAP has revenues of $10 million, they should probably pay similar broadcast royalties if they have audiences of about the same size. If KRAP rakes in much more than its neighbor down the dial, they ought to pay more.
As to the whataboutery mentioned above, I happen to think that government owning or paying subsidies to broadcasters ought to be considered a violation of the First Amendment. Separation of press and state ought to include the electronic press. That makes the question of funding media qualatatively different from spending on the military, or roads, or anything elde that is arguably constitutional.
Kevin
|3.23.07 @ 2:32PM|#
I assume your presentation of the theory behind patent holding companies is for others. I've never been persuaded by that rhetoric given that contingency fees are widely used (in the area of small biz). The whole theory goes out the window. You run a biz based on IP, yet you sell your IP the second it gets developed? There are far too many companies that will manage your IP portfolio for you to sell your viable patents. It's the nonviable patents that the trolls go after.
|3.23.07 @ 2:37PM|#
The subsidized entities I was referring to were PBS and NPR.
There is no reason for them to continue to exist as such, assuming
there ever was, in a media market begging for content.
Again, unless readers are expected to mind read or make assumptions
about what you meant, in your head your complaint was about about
funding but in print your comments were about why their existance.
Do you agree that as entities (regardless of funding) they serve a
purpose and do in fact have a reason for existing?
All I am asking is that in your zeal to poo-poo public radio you at
least make clear points your objections rather than say silly
things like "what's a good reason for them to exist"
So, to put it more tersely, your second point is
irrelevant.
Then let me make a more relevant argument. I believe providing tax
dollars / subsidies to public broadcasting that provides local
programming/focus which can't be found elsewhere or may be
neglected/underserved by commercial enterprise is a very valid use
of those tax dollars. I believe that it's quite valid for tax
dollars to be used to provide outlets like PBS and NPR the ability
cover community events, despite the fact that some taxpayers may
not care. And I also think that complaints because some segments of
the programming may be not as useful as others are misguided. No
entity provides programming that appeals to everyone all the
time.
If we have to pay taxes, which we do, I believe these are much more
valid uses of tax dollars than most other things that those monies
are used for.
Dave W.|3.23.07 @ 2:51PM|#
I assume your presentation of the theory behind patent
holding companies is for others. I've never been persuaded by that
rhetoric given that contingency fees are widely used (in the area
of small biz).
A patent is not a lawsuit. It was always designed to be an
alienable, tradeable, divisible commodity. It has been that way
since long, long, long before contingency litigation became the
rage.
Look at it this way: you don't have to take your lawsuits to the US
Lawsuit Office to be examined to try to assure they are
meritorious. On the other hand, you do have to take your Patent
Application to the Patent Office. And there will generally be a
substantive negotiation with the patent examiner to decide whether
you get a patent at all, and, if so, what that patent will entitle
you to out in the world of commerce. You may come out with nothing.
This takes about 4 years -- often more -- so you have to wait four
years to rush to court. Then there is the ten or twenty thousand
dollars I mentioned. Peanuts compared to the type of capital
investment for a patent lawsuit, but still a hurdle --
there are cheaper ways to get a ticket for a frivolous suit if that
is what you are after.
I sense a dicomfort on your part, Lamar for the mere fact that
patents give one a right in tort, ultimately, rather than the fact
that patents are freely alienable. A lot of HnRers seem
uncomfortable with tort. Maybe that is why it was so easy for RIM
to get the sympathy of the press and populace in the Blackberry
case. However, not all tort cases are created equal. The "free
markets" we so crave at HnR were built, in part, about a
solid foundation of tort law. Certain aspects of the tort system
(eg, frivolous claims, high punitives, class actions) may indeed be
out of control. However, not all tort litigation suffers from these
problems, and I would submit that patent litigation currently does
not. The Blackberry case may have been pitched to you as
some horrible thing, but it wasn't. What happened is that a lot of
people got news about the case from periodicals where RIM
adverstised, and the patentee did not.
Now if parties did start pooling their patent to the egregious
extent that the RIAA and MPAA effectively pool copyrights, then
that would be a problem. However, none of the so-called patent
trolls even remotely resembles the RIAA or MPAA in terms of money,
power or consolidation. If they did, it would, but that is a moot
issue. You don't see the party who bought the patent at issue in
the Blackberry case lobbying Congress for favorable laws,
the way the RIAA and MPAA do as a matter of course these days.
Whoever that patent-purchaser-cum-litigant was (and I have
forgotten their name), they just are not anywhere near the big
leagues.
cgee|3.23.07 @ 3:10PM|#
Is there any reason why these operations could not be moved
offshore to avoid the royalty issues? This is internet radio, after
all, so location really should not be a problem.
Dave W. - nice patent blog, thanks for the link
dhex|3.23.07 @ 3:14PM|#
lamar: bleep.com is so indie it actually is a van posing as a website, and ramen posing as mp3s.
|3.23.07 @ 3:18PM|#
Dave W.:
I've tried enough cases to be comfortable with tort law and
suspicious at the same time.
You made so much sense earlier, and now you are talking about the
differences between a lawsuit and a patent. I don't understand
where you are going. It's like saying there is a difference between
a parking ticket and a carbureator.
Being in the patent biz, I assumed you'd be familiar with patent
trolls. When somebody talks about patent trolls, they aren't
talking about the small business concerns you were talking about.
They are talking about the businesses set up to take dubious
patents (i.e., the "shopping cart" on a website was patented!) and
make a quick buck. I guess you see that as cool. I see it as a
waste.
Dave W.|3.23.07 @ 3:24PM|#
side note to Lamar:
I plan on getting a couple of your songs in my radio loop for April
if they are up on myspace.
dhex gave me a nice tip on a breakbeat band for this month's loop
and got a shoutout.
here is the link to the loop:
http://www.live365.com/stations/farces
|3.23.07 @ 3:36PM|#
Perhaps soon. I'm a little new to the rock band with a synth idea, so it'll take couple of weeks to get a set down.
Dave W.|3.23.07 @ 3:40PM|#
They are talking about the businesses set up to take dubious
patents (i.e., the "shopping cart" on a website was patented!) and
make a quick buck. I guess you see that as cool. I see it as a
waste.
I haven't seen a lot of companies like that, although I have to
admit that I haven't been following patent litigation too closely
since 2002.
My company certainly has some patents we would be willing to part
with, and it is not exactly like anybody is beating my door down to
get at them (which is probably a good thing).
Most of my feeling that this patent troll stuff comes from the fact
that the Blackberry case was so widely pitched as
trolling. I put off looking into the case, but when I did, it did
not seem frivolous or untoward or a waste. It seemed like a
small-time inventor leveraging its brains against a behemoth
company in the most efficient way. i decided that if that is the
standard of "trolling" then the trolling problem is
overblown.
I remember watching Refac lose time and again at court, back when I
read all the patent cases in the early 90s. Was surprised to see
Refac still around, in some sense, but haven't seen them popping up
in the captions so much now.
Is there a specific case, besides Blackberry, that you
think is a troll? Or is this one of those things where we don't
really get to hear about the trolls because they are "payed off"
without making the media?
Dave W.|3.23.07 @ 3:49PM|#
the "shopping cart" on a website was patented!) and make a
quick buck. I guess you see that as cool.
I don't know if it is cool or not. Why do you think it is uncool?
What exactly do you think was wrong with the shopping cart
patent?
To ask a slightly different question, let's say your friend walked
up to you around the time the "shopping cart" patent application
was filed, and said, "Hey, Lamar, I have to show this stuff in my
Internet shopping cart!" How would you have interpreted that? Let's
say, for the sake of argument, that this was 1990. How would you
have responded to your friend's comment in 1990?
Dave W.|3.23.07 @ 3:57PM|#
Upon further researc, it turns out that the "shopping cart" patent was filed in 1994. still, the question remains, what if somebody wanted to show you their "Internet shopping cart" back in 1994. Would you have had any idea what they were talking about?
|3.23.07 @ 4:18PM|#
Yes, absolutely. It is obvious. Very, very obvious. And not the
hindsight is 20/20 kind of obvious. It's the "how did they ever
patent that" kind of obvious. I realize that many people
have selective memories as to how the world was in 1994, but that
argument cuts both ways. We weren't as sophisticated about a lot of
things, but we also weren't sloths living in trees either.
I'm surprised that obvious checkout methods are able to get a
patent. Basically, Amazon tried to stop other companies from
pre-registering customers. No? Is there much, much more to this? It
even appears that Amazon's founding programmers thought that their
patent suit was bogus. Isn't there a problem with software patents?
Should there be a new form of software protection somewhere between
copyright and patent? I don't know the answer, but I do know that
the shopping cart is so obvious it hurts.
|3.23.07 @ 4:21PM|#
My problem with the shopping cart thing is that Amazon not only patented a process, they tried to own the result as well. I cannot see how this is any different than Viagra suing Cialis because they both make boners.
Mike Laursen|3.23.07 @ 4:26PM|#
Is there any reason why these operations could not be moved
offshore to avoid the royalty issues?
I presume it would be like moving your online gambling site
offshore. You'd better make sure you move your physical body
offshore along with your Internet radio station. Or risk
arrest.
Dave W.|3.23.07 @ 4:27PM|#
Couple more notes on the "shopping cart patent" cases:
The company that owns the patent now is called Soverain Software. I
do not know if they have any substantial assets or business beyond
their patent portfolio. I do know that they acquired the patent
through 2003 bankruptcy procedings involving a company called
Divine.
Soverain sued Amazon on the patent and got a payment of $40 million
on the eve of trial.
I still don't know if that is a good outcome or not because I still
don't know how obvious an Internet shopping cart would have been in
1994. I know that if somebody personally said "Internet shopping
cart" to me in 1994, I would have been puzzled because I was not
acquainted with the idea of buying things over the Internet at that
time. my Internet experiences were quite limited at that time and
did not include shopping, although I think I might have heard of a
potential client who wanted to "sell music over the Internet"
around that time. i remembered being quite puzzled at what "selling
music over the Internet" meant. Years later, it became
clearer.
Of course, I am not an Internet expert. Maybe other people were all
over Internet commerce prior to 1994. Of course, if that is so,
then I would expect there to be "prior art" showing that, and
probably even suggesting some type of Internet shopping cart.
Failing that, I imagine that the shopping cart patent did bring
something new and conceptaully substantial to the table, and that
the $40 million was deserved.
|3.23.07 @ 4:31PM|#
The programmers at Amazon seem to think that they just took an obvious idea (the shopping cart) and put it into their software like everybody else. Besides, like I said, they didn't patent their method of clicking on a cart link, they tried to patent clicking on a cart link.
Mike Laursen|3.23.07 @ 4:37PM|#
I see no reason why all the popular shows on NPR couldn't be
successful in a commercial format. Note that "This American Life"
just swung a deal to appear on Showtime.
And the more obscure shows could find their niche, too. As podcasts
or streaming Internet radio. Thanks to the government leaving their
hands off the computer industry, computers and Internet access are
cheap enough that poor people can afford them, too.
|3.23.07 @ 5:37PM|#
I don't know if it is cool or not. Why do you think it is
uncool? What exactly do you think was wrong with the shopping cart
patent?
Because an online shopping cart has not only existed since the
early 80s (well before the 1994 patent), but the concept is so
basic and simple, that it shouldn't be patentable. I ordered stuff
online back in 1985 using a shopping cart. If you can't understand
why someone patenting a concept that has been in use for a decade
before online, and for 100 years in the real world, is a problem,
then you are either retarded or totally corrupt.
I mean, just recently a patent was approved for linked lists (and
yet, I looked over the patent, and the person patented linked
lists). Linked lists have been in use in programming since the
1960s, and are a basic computer science 101 data storage technique.
Now probably thousands of innocent people are going to have to pay
millions of dollars in legal fees to defend themselves when some
company chooses to agressivly litigate the patent. Innocent people,
using the most basic technique that they teach in all computer
science books are going to be financially destroyed, even if they
win the case.
The reason you support the current patent system is because you are
one of the preditors that are exploiting the system for your own
gain! I mean, obviously you have helped super simple prior art
concepts get patents and then went after innocent people in court
driving them into bankrupcy! You are a vile person! You are worse
than a mugger, because at least a mugger isn't a pudgy weak bastard
like you and they take some personal risk when they steal! Shame on
you, criminal thieving bastard!
|3.23.07 @ 6:01PM|#
"The reason you support the current patent system is because
you are one of the preditors that are exploiting the system for
your own gain!"
Any gain for Dave W. is a gain for experimental rock music. It's
called trickle sideways economics. Average Americans go to work,
bring home money, then spend it on hyped up recording gear. I think
Reagan coined the term in his home studio.
|3.23.07 @ 6:57PM|#
What I find really interesting about this is who makes up the
board.
Check out the links on the website. It'll blow your mind.
Quite possibly the most most easily navigable government web site
ever!
violent_k|3.23.07 @ 7:10PM|#
Lamar and Dave,
When you say the "shopping cart" has been patented, what does that
mean? If I were to have a programmer create a custom shopping cart
for my site(using 100% home grown code), am I supposed to send
someone other than the programmer a check?
Guy Montag|3.24.07 @ 9:41AM|#
If private radio can do the same, why haven't they produced
something like Frontline.
1. Who cares.
2. Just because you have not seen/heard something does not mean
that it is nonexistant.
|3.24.07 @ 5:49PM|#
Frontline is produced by a private station: WGBH. If
the government subsidies funneled through CPB and PBS to WGBH and
the other member stations were cut off, they could be replaced by
more fundraising. That doesn't mean that Frontline would
necessarily disappear, though some programs with a lower profile
might, if they couldn't increase underwriting, viewer donations or
merchandising .
Ask yourself this question: Does the subsidized presence of PBS and
NPR on our "dials" influence the programming execs at the
commercial nets to be less likely to OK production of a series like
the old CBS Reports or NBC's White Paper? "What
the hell, we don't have to do this, PBS covers that beat. Let's add
another Anna Nicole segment to Dateline (or 60
Minutes or 20/20)!"
ABC has actually partnered with Frontline, airing short
versions on Nightline, that plug the full-on docco on
PBS.
Kevin
|3.27.07 @ 2:36PM|#
Violent_K:
The answer is probably. Get a lawyer. We're the ones who really
make out in all this, don'tcha know. IP is like permanent
employment for all lawyers.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245