can someone explain the internet music change?

just how will it affect the small-time dj in SL?

It depends alot on how the small time DJ in SL operates. I'm not terribly well versed in that bit, maybe Kamael will spot this and pipe in here, as you can trust him for a well explained, insightful answer. In the meantime, more information about the issue in general can be found at savenetradio.org.

Thanks Zaphod but savenetradio.org doesn't explain the issue only says that internet broadcasters have to pay more than they did. If you don't pay anything to broadcast now then i asume you are going to be ok?

If you are not paying anything now but you are using IP from somebody else, you are at fault. Basically the idea is that every time a DJ/Radio broadcast a song from someone, certain royalties have to be paid to the musician/creator/etc. Supposedly, these royalties are expected to sky rocket, that's where the problem lies.

Ok so if everytime a dj plays a (insert corporate musican name here) song they must pay point19th of a cent or something, now if no one is listening is it still the same as if 100 or a thousand people are listening? you can only play so many 3 minute songs in a day if it's only a fraction of a cent per song regardless of how many people are listening whats the big deal?

I think it only really affects active "stations" i.e. entities that are constantly streaming. I think this is only the case because of the fact that you are harder to track down since you could just turn it off if someone with the name "FCCsnitch Barrett" comes to your party!

But seriously, folks, I don't think they had SL in mind when they were making this shitty law. SL is technically just a viewer when it comes to streaming media so it would depend on how you setup your stream. Since most DJs (I know of anyway) go through shoutcast and other hosting services you might want to check with your particular provider to see how they will be effected.

Otherwise I would think that if you were set up so not just anyone on the internet could find your stream then it would be considered "private" and wouldn't be much different than streaming through a network you and your roommates have in your house (for example).

But just like most of this internet media issue, it's all guessing pretty much.

It's basically paying per listener per song with a minimum monthly payment so you can expect to pay (I think) at least $500 a month even if no one listens to you.

Plus it's retro-active to sometime in 2006. No one will be able to survive that.

thanks squeeze, yeah, it's all guessing, we got a day of silence telling us how evil forces will ruin internet music, we have people on this forumn telling us to write our senators to stop this discrace, we have websites telling us to all join together and sing f-ing kumbaya to save internet radio "for the children!" but no one really knows what this f-ing law is going to do or won't tell!

if all of a sudden theres on 80's music when I go to buy a script who cares? But if my favorite dj can't stream to 30 people on a saturday night then i will be angry, unfortunately I can't find a straight answer to make up my mind here.

ok so no more corporate music in SL, no DJ's, poor Sukkubus Phaeton and Artillo Fredericks will have to hang up their mics. But if your stream isn't corporate music then it isn't taxed I'm guessing?

What a boon for punk rockers, the only music we can stream is punk rock because they didn't sell out to the man in the first place hehe, man, all my un-signed bands and skits will be gold now!

Yes, independent artist could allow their music to be streamed. But most music you hear and know is backed by a studio. But in the end, this could create a complete subculture of underground bands... hmmm?

yeah, i'm guessing that the small time dj with un-signed origional music and skits can fill in the gaps that semi-corporate radio will be leaving.

This might be a good time to write a radio show, like the old time radio hehe. or get some friends to tell jokes over the air, make up skits, that's what my old band Homer Simplex did, most of the time it royally sucked but it was all original.

now is the time to be creative, quite frankly I'm sick of most of the streams I hear when I tp to someones place, I much prefer to here someone talking or joking about SL or life in general...

hehe there allready IS a subculture of underground bands but they dont get played because people are listening to Boy George for the thousandth time, but not for long!

. Internet radio is dead! long live internet radio!

In the US, the CBC (Copyright Board) decided that internet radio should pay a hefty annual fee ($500 US) for each station they have - including non-profit stations - and an additional royalty for every song they played, based on the listeners that were connected when it was being "aired", retroactive to January 1, 2006.

This upset a lot of people, since the fees would average between 60% and 300% of the income internet radio stations generate, effectively crippling all of them, and forcing all the "non-corporate" ones off the air. (Even the small, independent people, broadcasting their own music, would be liable for the $500 fee, as I understand it.)

Much legal action ensued, mainly based on the fact that these rates would be assessed only on Internet radio. Satellite radio only pays 5% to 7% of their revenues in royalties, and broadcast radio pays nothing.

At this point, there has been a stay on the date the new fees would take effect. (They were originally slated to begin May 15, and are now supposed to start on July 15.) The CBC has decided to change how the royalties are assessed (average listeners, instead of per-song connections, mostly because it was pointed out that the latter would be impossible to calculate.) And there is a bill making its way through the House of Representatives (HR 2060, the Internet Radio Equality Act) that would mandate royalties that match those of satellite radio. Currently the bill has over 120 co-sponsers. There is a similar bill in the Senate, I believe, but I don't know the particulars of it.

For more about this, you can visit http://www.savenetradio.org/.

What does this have to do with Second Life?

A lot of parcels use music that's streamed from various internet radio stations based in the US. If they are silenced, then there will be no music on those parcels.

I'm not sure, but is music streamed from the internet used for all the music in SL?

If it is then it's entirely possible that, at the very least, these would all be deemed "Internet Radio Stations" and charged the annual $500 fee. It might also be argued that residents, or dwell, constitute "listeners," and the royalties might be assessed as well, going back to January of 2006, of course, when no one realized that they might be liable for hundreds or thousands of dollars for streaming music. (That would probably be for "stations," not for people turning music on for their parcels, but you never know.)

In any case, if you live in the US, it's definitely worth writing to your congress critters about this one. It's obviously unfair for Internet radio to have to pay more royalties than any other broadcast form, and even more unfair to assess them retroactively to January 1, 2006, when the broadcasters didn't know not to broadcast.

Hope this helps!

Well... they're a small time DJ... It won't affect them at all as it's a question of enforcement. It's highly unlikely the Feds will be kicking down the door of DJ LolCat in RL, not because he streamed his vast collection of Teddy Bears' Picnic covers into Club Lol in SL, but because no one knows who he is.

so you're not even allowed to stream your own, non-corporate completely not part of the recording industry music eh? are you allowed to talk? or does every stream with any kind of content have to pay a minimum of 500$? thats complete totalitarian fascism akin with the old British poll tax.

btw savenetradio.org is useless I've looked for a long time and cant find any straight answers.

sure they'll know who he is, he has to get the stream hosted somewhere either from his PC or a service like shoutcast, both can pinpoint him.

Okay... he's a "small time DJ"... remember that part? The use of "small time" means this person is a nobody. There's no need to devote the necessary resources to prosecuting this person as they're "small time."

It's similar to arresting someone for eating a single grape in a supermarket. There's no reason to surround them and tear gas them and cuff them and send them off to Banada. It's a grape. It's "small time." Even if it's caught on the ever watchful eyes of all the security cameras in the store it's unlikely anyone is going to pursue the matter as... it's a grape... it's "small time."

actually 500$ sounds close to felony rather than misdemeanor territory, yeah sure, it's not like the feds would spend thousands to arrest a small time dj who's playing bon jovi to 30 people in Sl but the RIAA may decide to prosecute.

If that was true, the new law wouldn't have been specificially amended to remove a lower rate for smaller webcasters.

What would be the point of law makers effectively imposing a new law on small-time broadcasters, if they intended never to enforce it against them because they are small-time?

I knew a bit about this law but I did not know it was so ridiculous it would apply to someone streaming music they wrote onto an SL parcel. Amongst other things, this could destroy live music, if the musician is deemed to be running a "radio station" because they are streaming music onto SL, and thus has to pay the $500. I'm not a US citizen, so please, folks who are, write to people about this

I broadcast LIve me, I broadcast dmusic.com indie artist that want to be heard there will be no fee for me, as well my streem url is non puplic they would have to come to my club to listen to see when I slip in smack that ass!

F"""" the RIAA!

edit it will NOT affect non RIAA music or Creative Commons music or any band that gives you permission to streem on your broadcast.
it could if passed in some crazy way create a fee for shoutcast relay host that would have to in turn raise rental cost