Tough issue: Internet Radio

[briatx]

Ok, so I've been hearing about the save internet radio campaign, and it seems to me this could be problematic for the Ron Paul campaign. So I think its important to have a reasoned response to those who feel strongly about this.

It could be very divisive on the internet, since there are some people who I imagine will decide their vote on this issue alone.

http://www.savenetradio.org/

 

[UCFGavin]

what?

 

[torchbearer]

huh?

 

[briatx]

Ok, I should elaborate.

Ron Paul is pro-free market. So he will not want to the government to step in to enforce either net-neutrality, nor try to keep some piddling internet radio sites online.

So I'm wondering what the stance is here. Do we support RIAA and big music labels in charging high royalties to run internet radio sites, which would subsequently put them out of business? Is that free market?

Just curious right now. But I imagine this would be something democrats would use against Ron Pauls internet support -- "but he would shut down internet radio!", etc.

 

[Duckman]

So I work for a company which actually has a horse in this race, and they've been lobbying me hard to contact my congressman/senators to stop the rate hike.

This whole situation just looks to me like an example of the problems with government interference in the market.

Read this article:

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=/commentary/20070625_mak.html

Basically, there is a Copyright Royalty Board, which was established by Congress to regulate the royalty fees for net radio. They can both force the terms on which the RIAA (content owners) and the radio stations do business. They are going to make a non-market based decision to hike rates at the behest of the RIAA. The net result of this is likely to be that smaller net radio players will go out of business and larger players will have to reduce consumer choice (by cutting custom radio stations due to a $500 per station fee which will be slapped on a custom station).

Since the CRB is already a government entity I don't think its wrong to lobby the CRB to change thier mind. However, I would argue that we don't need the CRB. Radio stations should be able to make their own deals with the RIAA. As it is now, all radio stations get the same deal from them which I think reduces innovation.

 

[torchbearer]

internet radio site could choose to use music and content that isn't controlled by the RIAA and music labels.
there are only 100 thousand bands waiting in line to get their -also- great music on the air.
this has nothing to do with net neutrality... and remember-
in a free market, if force is applied ... a counter-force is created. i.e. blowback.
physics- equal and opposite reaction.
company A charges too much on royalties.
lil' indie company B charges very small royalties.
company B will eventually get more business porportional to the price increase of company A.

 

[Duckman]

That is true, but in this case you have copyrighted content involved. Company B can charge a lower price but what you are getting is not the same as what you get from Company A.

I agree that alot of independent music is good, but the vast majority of the public prefers on-label music, if for no other reason than the fact they are exposed to it more. This allows the RIAA something like monopolistic powers, because they are the exclusive gatekeepers to all of that content.

 

[briatx]

Thanks Duckman for that concise explanation. We need to frame the issue in exactly those terms if it starts being used against Ron Paul.

I agree that it would be best if musicians simply bypassed the labels, but that's not where we're at right now, though certainly I think thats the future.

But right now we're in a place where most music people care about is beholden to the RIAA.

 

[Chase]

For the record, Ron Paul is one of over a hundred cosponsors of HR 2060, a bill designed to save Internet Radio from the Copyright Royalty Board's recent decision.

 

[kylejack]

Congress shouldn't be setting these rates at all. The RIAA can charge whatever it wants for licensing of music made by its member studios.

 

[briatx]

Ah, Chase boldy reveals my ignorance in one fell swoop.

Thanks Chase.

Nevermind then, nothing to see here.

 

[torchbearer]

if you can prove RIAA to be a monopoly, i would approve of breaking up the monopoly.

 

[Duckman]

Congress shouldn't be setting these rates at all. The RIAA can charge whatever it wants for licensing of music made by its member studios.

I agree, which is why I think we don't need the CRB. I'm not sure, but I bet the CRB was created so that the little guys who don't have lawyers to negotiate with the RIAA could get in the game, but the end result is that now everyone is forced to live by the terms dictated by the CRB, which at this point are giving the RIAA a non-market edge that is going to end up killing the little guys and hurting the bigger guys who actually could have cut their own deals if they were allowed.

 

[Duckman]

if you can prove RIAA to be a monopoly, i would approve of breaking up the monopoly.

Well, it goes to a bigger issue of copyright law in general. Every copyright holder has a monopoly on whatever they copyrighted. The RIAA expands this by taking many individual copyright holders and banding them together so they act in lockstep, like a large monopoly. But it's a voluntary association of copyright holders, so I don't think it can or should be "broken up" by the government. But considering this case in detail would be an interesting exercise in libertarian thought.

 

[torchbearer]

One entity garnering complete control over a market, in which there sphere of control becomes so big as to destroy market choice is a monopoly. private, public... doesn't matter. a corporation is just an asssociation business.

 

[nayjevin]

but the vast majority of the public prefers on-label music

the big musicians get suckered into big upfront contracts with crap long term royalties.

musicians need the balls to go NOFX or deftones and bypass the corporate system

seriously, with mp3 downloads and CD duplication / myspace etc etc it's becoming easier for bands to label themselves.

 

[nayjevin]

One entity garnering complete control over a market

they wouldn't have complete control if musicians would man up and fight the system. it annoys me to no end that people don't exercise their consumer right of boycott, then complain for the government to come bail them out from the big bad companies they support.

 

[torchbearer]

I have an indie label, i've had my own success indie band for 12 years. It really is up to the bands to break the cycle. its just hard to pass up the easy money up front. I did... but i'm very libertarian. i don't work well as a slave under contract.

 

[nayjevin]

I have an indie label

link please!

 

[kylejack]

One entity garnering complete control over a market, in which there sphere of control becomes so big as to destroy market choice is a monopoly. private, public... doesn't matter. a corporation is just an asssociation business.

Yeah, well that's not the case. I listen almost entirely to non-RIAA music.