Re: [ARSCLIST] Urgent Message From SaveNetRadio

[Dismuke <dismukemail@xxxxxxxxx>]

--- Bob Olhsson <olh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> -----Original Message-----
> From Miss Q: "...As for the fee cap, it limits fees
> through 2008 if the
> station agrees to
> NEVER lobby congress to change the fees. Not exactly
> a good deal for a year
> of broadcasting."
> 
> 
> Where do you see a year of broadcasting other than
> for multi-million dollar
> corporations?


It was in the fine print that was NOT disclosed to the
general public or to Congress in the SoundExchange
press release.  

Furthermore, if you are so all fired opposed to "multi
million dollar corporations"  then why on earth are
you so shamelessly shilling for SoundExchange which is
an arm of the RIAA, a CARTEL of multi-million dollar
corporations?  Plus, the RIAA is not merely a cartel
of multi-million dollar corporations; it is a cartel
which is trying to bankrupt small mom and pop
businesses, non profit organizations, hobbyists and
independent artists that it is TERRIFIED of as
potential emerging competitors. 

If you are so anti - "multimillion dollar
corporations"   then you are on the WRONG side of this
battle. (For the record, I am NOT anti multimillion
dollar corporations.  First off, two million dollars
of capitalization in today's world is jack squat.
Second - if a person or a company is successful and
makes lots of money providing products and services
people voluntarily choose to buy, then that is a good
thing and the result of VIRTUOUS activity.  Being
wealthy is only wrong when the wealth comes via ill
gotten means - which, by the way, is how the RIAA
labels are apparently starting seek their wealth now
that the legitimate functions they once served are
technologically obsolete and no longer in demand by
customers).

If you want to talk about a "multi million dollar
corporation" lets talk about a multi BILLION dollar
corporation called CBS - you know, the old dinosaur
media corporation.   CBS recently purchased a London
based webcaster called Last.fm.  When webcasters such
as myself shut our streams down a couple of weeks ago
for a Day of Silence to draw attention to the royalty
crisis, Last.fm, undoubtedly acting under orders from
its new masters, did not participate and SNEERED at
other webcasters saying that they were "baffled at the
opinions being aired" and that the existence of
royalties "has been a commercial reality for years."  
Well, no wonder they sneered and were unconcerned
about rates.  Just the other day, they announced a
sweetheart deal with Sony which would BYPASS the CRB
rates in exchange for playing Sony's music.

In other words, CBS will get to pay what SoundExchange
calls "below market rates" because it will play only
Sony music and, most likely, music from other RIAA
labels as a result of similar deals.  What kind of
music will be ABSENT from Last.fm?  That's right. 
independent, non RIAA music - just as such music is
absent today from the FM stations run by CBS.  And,
going forward why WOULD they play music by
independents?  To do so, they would have to pay
statutory rates or they would have to do one-on-one
deals with each and every independent artist's
copyright holder which would simply NOT be a
commercially viable thing to do.

The whole goal of this royalty mess is for the RIAA to
kill off Internet radio stations that play independent
artists and niche genres and replace them with a
handful of hand picked, deep-pocketed corporations who
will get sweetheart deals to play RIAA label music.

When the SoundExchange denounces Yahoo and AOL as
greedy rich corporations - well, isn't that the pot
calling the kettle black?  What on earth are
Sony/Warner/Universal/EMI?  

When SoundExchange claims to be the champion of
artists - well, that so pathetic that it would be
funny if the stakes were not so high.  The ONLY
artists that will benefit from this are those who have
already become famous and already have mass market
hits.  Brittany Spears will probably benefit from
this.  For artists who are not yet famous, this will
be a DISASTER because  they have come to depend on
Internet radio as a means of promoting themselves and
introducing their music to new audiences.   Here is
one artist who makes just that point very well: 
http://tinyurl.com/yszjuq

The truth of the matter is that SoundExchange/RIAA
seek to SCREW artists by bringing back the days when
the practically the ONLY way one had any hope of
bringing one's work to national and international
audiences was to get past the gatekeepers at the RIAA
labels and the music directors at major market FM
stations. 

Furthmore, when most existing webcasters are bankrupt
and corporations such as CBS and the other handpicked
companies sign sweetheart deals with the RIAA - well,
since those deals will bypass SoundExchange, the
artists will not get ANYTHING as labels are not
required to pay any under direct licensing. 
SoundExchange knows this very well.  The only way
artists who are not copyright holders are credited for
royalties is if the peformance is paid through
SoundExchange at statutory rates.  If SoundExchange is
actually concerned about artists, why are they pushing
for a scheme where the ONLY webcasters that can afford
to survive will be those who enter into direct
licensing agreements with RIAA labels?   The answer,
of course, is SoundExchange is NOT concerned about
artists - that is just propaganda and LIES to obscure
the only thing that they ARE concerned about: the
agenda of their puppet masters at the RIAA which
founded SoundExchange and still controlls it through
its domination of the Board of Directors.

Bob - you have evaded every other request I have made
on this forum for proof to back up your assertions.  I
am asking you - is the situation I describe what you
call fair and moral?  Is it fair and moral for a
cartel of multinational multibillion dollar
corporations to push through a law that basically sets
up rates that will make it financially unviable for
anyone to perform and promote music put out by their
emerging competitors?  Is it fair and moral for a
multinational corporation to push through such a law
where a puppet organization that it controls (i.e.,
SoundExchange) has the power to negotiate the terms
that those who wish to promote their competitors'
products must abide by?  And you do not need to once
again remind anyone that webcasters can license
directly with copyright holders.  Everyone already
knows that.  And it is largely irrelevant because, as
anyone who gives a moment's worth of thought as to
what kind of logistical nightmare contacting hundreds
of copyright holders one-on-one would entail can
clearly see,  such an approach is NOT practical or
financially viable.  Furthermore, is it fair and moral
that webcasters are on the verge of bankruptcy because
of royalty rates which are imposed RETROACTIVELY due
to the fact that the government board that sets the
rates did not announce what they would be AHEAD of
time as is the case with any other sort of commercial
transaction?  You sneer at "multimillion dollar
corporations" - and yet you shill for a scheme that
plans to bankrupt VERY small companies in order to
artificially prop up the declining influence and
market share of a bunch of very wealthy and
established multi BILLION dollar conglomerates.  How
do you reconcile that?  You have claimed to be for the
artists - and yet you shill for a plan that will HURT
all but artists who are already successful and famous.
How do you reconcile that? 

If you are going to shill for morally bankrupt and
evil people - well, that's your right.  But people can
and should call you on it and demand that you back it
up.  And if you once again evade legitimate questions
that are raised in response to your postings - well,
that too is  your right.  But you will be judged
accordingly.