Dear {INSERT YOUR CONGRESSMAN'S NAME HERE.}:

I am writing to you as a voter from the {YOUR VOTING DISTRICT HERE. IF YOU DONT KNOW IT GOOGLE: {MY STATE} VOTING DISTRICTS} to express my displeasure with recent restrictions established by the federal Copyright Royalty Board(CRB). When enacted, these restrictions will require small and non-profit Streaming(Internet) Radio Stations (SRS) to pay a per usage penalty to copyright holders. Under the traditional system, these SRS pay a percentage of their revenue to those who manage intellectual property. This traditional system is the superior of the two as it allows compensation for rights holders while providing a level playing field for technological entrepreneurs eager to test and develop a budding technology.

Copyrights are a part of American society, valuable culturally and economically. It is legally imperative that those who own the rights to commercial art be paid for their distribution. However, there are multiple ways of achieving this end. The inferior proposed penalties involve a flat fee for everyone and increase annually. This fee is due regardless of status or profit, and is also applied retroactively to 2006. While many large commercial radio stations will be able to adjust to a static fee easily, this will almost certainly translate into the demise of many independent, non-profit, and private radio stations. The result is decreased competition and an economic stunting of a newly emerging market. Conversely, the tried and true system requires that non-profit and smaller SRS pay a percentage of their revenues to rights managers. This ensures that they are properly compensated while allowing these smaller stations to continue their broadcasts. These smaller broadcasts are often the source of innovation and will increase competition in the market simply by existing. The newly proposed restrictions will function only to limit competition in the marketplace and deny hobbyists and communities their pursuit of happiness. The current system allows for fair compensation based on a company's profitability and does not stifle any marketplace.

{REMOVE THIS PARAGRAPH IF IT DOESNT APPLY TO YOU STATE YOU RICH FUCK}
I often hear Ohio politicians talk about bringing a technological presence to the state, yet it seems we are consistently smothering the ability for individuals and small groups to innovate. We remain one of the poorest states in the nation and though tax abatements and other corporate programs have helped our economy grow marginally, it seems folly to repress the ability for individuals to explore and invent in the very sectors we are trying to develop. Pricing out independent SRS would be doing just that. I urge you and all of our Congressmen and women to open a dialogue about these regulations and present a system that serves your constituents fairly.

Sincerely,
Your Name Here

You're saying that this will only affect you in America. Can't you just go off shore with your station? Won't all the stations from other countries be unaffected?

___________________
This is where you put a funny quote or hectic image... and your http://www.inthemix.com.au/people/D...ortfolio/photos

quote:

Originally posted by tribu Dear {INSERT YOUR CONGRESSMAN'S NAME HERE.}: I am writing to you as a voter from the {YOUR VOTING DISTRICT HERE. IF YOU DONT KNOW IT GOOGLE: {MY STATE} VOTING DISTRICTS} to express my displeasure with recent restrictions established by the federal Copyright Royalty Board(CRB). When enacted, these restrictions will require small and non-profit Streaming(Internet) Radio Stations (SRS) to pay a per usage penalty to copyright holders. Under the traditional system, these SRS pay a percentage of their revenue to those who manage intellectual property. This traditional system is the superior of the two as it allows compensation for rights holders while providing a level playing field for technological entrepreneurs eager to test and develop a budding technology. Copyrights are a part of American society, valuable culturally and economically. It is legally imperative that those who own the rights to commercial art be paid for their distribution. However, there are multiple ways of achieving this end. The inferior proposed penalties involve a flat fee for everyone and increase annually. This fee is due regardless of status or profit, and is also applied retroactively to 2006. While many large commercial radio stations will be able to adjust to a static fee easily, this will almost certainly translate into the demise of many independent, non-profit, and private radio stations. The result is decreased competition and an economic stunting of a newly emerging market. Conversely, the tried and true system requires that non-profit and smaller SRS pay a percentage of their revenues to rights managers. This ensures that they are properly compensated while allowing these smaller stations to continue their broadcasts. These smaller broadcasts are often the source of innovation and will increase competition in the market simply by existing. The newly proposed restrictions will function only to limit competition in the marketplace and deny hobbyists and communities their pursuit of happiness. The current system allows for fair compensation based on a company's profitability and does not stifle any marketplace. {REMOVE THIS PARAGRAPH IF IT DOESNT APPLY TO YOU STATE YOU RICH FUCK} I often hear Ohio politicians talk about bringing a technological presence to the state, yet it seems we are consistently smothering the ability for individuals and small groups to innovate. We remain one of the poorest states in the nation and though tax abatements and other corporate programs have helped our economy grow marginally, it seems folly to repress the ability for individuals to explore and invent in the very sectors we are trying to develop. Pricing out independent SRS would be doing just that. I urge you and all of our Congressmen and women to open a dialogue about these regulations and present a system that serves your constituents fairly. Sincerely, Your Name Here

That's great, but include the specific name of the Bill. That's how mail gets filed and counted by issue, so it is how volume will be most noticed.

___________________

its pretty much well known that the royalty system needs to be reformed and is highly unfair for smaller artists and labels.

this whole thing is another example of how the music industry bigwigs are completely out of touch with the future of the industry.

small labels need stations like those mentioned to survive by having their tracks get airplay and publicity that the likes of the mainstream media would never allow.
small unsigned artists would never get the exposure or the publicity from their radio shows without specialist small scale radio stations.

it sounds to me that the big labels and the copyright industry is focused on putting a stranglehold on diversity because the public are no longer buying the crap manufactured shit that they are trying to force feed them.

it would be a backwards step for the music industry if they closed down the independant radio shows and would deeply harm dance music in particular.

although im not in the usa, i can understand with your worries and feel that something similar is on its way over here in the uk.

good luck guys, you have my support

Good (as in forboding and bad) article in the Washington Post...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...7031600514.html


Fuck...


Who's right is it for them to control an internet market that is international in nature?

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov That's great, but include the specific name of the Bill. That's how mail gets filed and counted by issue, so it is how volume will be most noticed.

Hmm I could do that. However, I was under the impression that this isnt a Congressional bill but a decision passed down by the Federal Copyright Board. I dont think that this is something that will be put to vote in Congress but is rather enacted on the chosen date.

quote:

Originally posted by Perfecto Fluoro http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...7031600514.html

quote:

"The attitude that really has to change is the idea that the people playing this music on the Web are somehow doing artists a favor," Simson says. Artists want their music to be heard, of course, and the industry likes the concept of Web radio, but Simson rejects the popular notion that the only thing small webcasters owe artists is the exposure they get from having their work streamed over the Internet.

Simson is getting a nice letter from me tomorrow. I'm going to chew his balls out hardcore in the most polite manner I can.

quote:

Originally posted by Perfecto Fluoro Who's right is it for them to control an internet market that is international in nature?

Because it's America dude. Like it or not, they take way too much interest and have way too much of an importance complex on things.

ANGRY EMAIL TIME


EDIT: is this gonna effect ppl uploading personal promo mixs as well?

___________________
Check out my Podcast for some bootshaking House & Techno!

http://chrisharrington.podomatic.com

I still don't see how this will effect the majority of internet radio stations because not all of them are located in the USA.

quote:

Originally posted by CallMeIshmael I still don't see how this will effect the majority of internet radio stations because not all of them are located in the USA.

- DigitallyImported
- BassDrive (Drum 'n Bass)
- Soma
- Proton Radio
- Party107
- ETN

Wave goodbye to all of them.