I've seen a few "Save Web Radio" posts here at DK over the past few weeks; most sink quickly. Which, given the fact that there are so many other things going on (US Attorney scandals, questionable appointments, lying appointees, etc.) and so many other distractions that misdirect from the news, makes sense.
I'm a webcaster. My station is here. It's a mix of new indie and classic alternative, and those who like it like it a lot. I've put a lot into it as well, but because a combination of Democratic and Republican lawmakers have put some truly boneheaded laws into place, I may have to give it up.
Sure, it's a crying shame, but it's not worth worrying about when there's so much else wrong in the world, right? Wrong. I think there's something more ominous at work here, just as I do whenever it seems to me that there's a clear path to do the "right thing" that those in charge nonetheless avoid. More after the jump...
Yesterday, the Library Of Congress' Copyright Royalty Board denied attempts overturn an exorbitant increase in the amount of money webcasters will need to pay to keep broadcasting, essentially with a hand-wave and a "we've heard these arguments before" dismissal.
Ever notice how "We've heard these arguments before" is actually code for "and we aren't planning on actually paying attention to them"?
Here's the long and the short of it: we're being asked to pay fees that haven't ever been collected on artists' behalf prior to the existence of the Internet. Fees that are crafted entirely on the basis of a lie.
The lie goes like this:
- People can broadcast on the Internet.
- The Internet is a digital medium.
- CDs are a digital medium.
- CDs sound perfect.
- Digital reproduction is perfect.
- Therefore, anyone broadcasting on the Internet is transmitting perfect copies of music owned by someone else, and that someone else is entitled to compensation for the transmission of these perfect copies.
See what they did there? They managed to create a legal fiction - anyone who has listened to web radio knows that, while it's good enough quality to be entertaining, it's certainly no comparison to a high-quality CD, or even a good quality MP3.
It's on the basis of this fiction that music producers now demand to be compensated for lost sales, because surely web radio is causing sales to shrink. (Hasn't got a thing to do with the quality of the music, or the fact that $15 for a CD with two or three good songs on it isn't as good a value as a $17 DVD featuring a movie that you'll actually watch all of.)
The final bit of the denial is interesting, in that it bolsters the linguistic game being played by the record industry. The one request that was not denied was the one from SoundExchange, the record companies' royalty-collection agent, that asked that the term "Internet transmissions" be changed to "digital audio transmissions". They're trying to use the term most people associate with "perfect", even though, as I've said, Internet radio isn't even close.
So, what's insidious about it? Web radio carries with it the promise that more artists will get wider visibility, which seems like a win for everyone involved. That's the "clear path" I mentioned earlier.
So why not go down the clear path? Here's some conjecture on my part...
- If you run a record company and you're trying to cut costs, life is better for you if people don't know about that many artists. Then you can limit your roster to only the most successful acts, and keep your staff small enough to keep profits high. Of course, you don't want to let on that your actual agenda involves limiting peoples' choices so you invent a story that the people who are doing artists a favor by widening their fame a bit, are actually stealing from you.
Anything else you can think that justifies, or at least explains, the machinations of the recording industry here?
In my opinion, this is a chilling example of how laws can be manipulated to further a corporation's interests, to the point where an entire industry running counter to those interests can evaporate at the stroke of a pen. Today, it's the audience for webcasters that suffers...what about tomorrow?