XRQKFM said:
If one decides to break the law that's their choice.
Or perhaps someone will have the guts to challenge the DMCA as unconstitutional.
The law was passed with allot of misinformation falsely provided by the recording industry and boat loads of graph from the lobbyist passed onto our greedy lawmakers. Word is that some groups are getting ready to take on the DMCA and get the law changed or settle it in court. The rules and laws won't change if everyone just bends over, the recording industry is also getting the message; streaming broadcasters are good for business and are less inclined to go on the attack. It's not like broadcasters are wholesale stealing and copying music, fact is streaming broadcasters are starting to generate revenue for the industry. Even some record executives and many artist admit the DMCA was overkill and hurt the industry in the long run. Most would prefer to go a different route if they have a chance to do it over again..
I'm not one to argue the semantics of how the law is/was written, but I fail to see how if one feels a law isn't fair where it is perfectly acceptable to break it. Do you blatantly speed through red lights, shoot people with guns, rob banks and embezzle money just because you don't agree with the laws as written? No matter how egregious you feel a law is, intentionally breaking it is not the way to go about getting it changed.
Believe me, I wasn't happy with the DMCA rulings either. When I had my web stream I participated in the day of silence and was even forced to turn off one of my streams due to the financial devastation the DMCA would have caused me. There are legal ways to call for change but just blatantly breaking the law is not one of them.
XRQKFM said:
It is because of the hassles and cost of dealing with the RIAA / SoundExchange etc. we don't open stream most of our programming. We can open stream our indie artist stations, as we have signed releases from the artist to broadcast their works. The artist we work with are pleased with the results we deliver for them, and are eager to create more music for us. Artist freely give us interviews without a hassle, and go out of there way to please us. Our teen artist Chloe, is just a phone call away, Brittany is a bit harder to get a hold of and can't sing if her life depended on it.
If you want to technically split hairs, I believe the RIAA / SoundExchange claim the right to collect royalties for
all artists and the artists are then required to join and file to claim those collected royalties. I personally don't agree with that as I believe it's simply the guise of another money grab of the RIAA and ClownExchange (oops, SoundExchange). Whether or not that is constitutional is one thing, but I would rather not be on the receiving end of any lawsuit regarding this issue. While, in my own opinion, I believe a stream operator with signed agreements with indie artists would be found legal in the long run I would not want to have to drain my own financial sheet to win this.
XRQKFM said:
Between the many small webcasters who use Live365, Loudcity, etc to stations from Clear Channel, Cumulus and the like who are streaming AND paying their required royalties sort of puts a hole in your stance.
Or it could mean allot of sheep are being pulled by the same chain, and Clear Channel, Cumulus pay much lower rates if any compared to the small ma & pa streaming broadcaster.
Our artist; which it's really all about, are fine with the way we do business.
Steve
www.radiooutlaw.com
That's just like arguing that people who use Live365, LoudCity, SWCast, etc., are paying lower rates that those who go it alone. Then again, larger corporate entities may pay even lower rates due to them negotiating their rates. I fail to see how one believes they are privileged to break the law just because these larger entities have been able to secure better rates.
Should somebody go and steal a couch just because my neighbor was able to get a better price on the one he purchased a day after you? Should somebody rob from a grocery store because somebody else got a better deal on deli meat than you? No matter how unjust you may feel the DMCA rules are, breaking the law is still breaking the law no matter how you slice it. If you don't agree with the related rulings and law join one of the many groups fighting it. As far as I'm concerned, those willfully breaking the law are responsible for any legal action brought against themselves. I just hope they are prepared to possibly become a casualty in the resulting aftermath.
