7 ms·

Internet Radio Copyright Is Dumb: A Comprehensive Explainer

70 points by Amorymeltzer 11y ago

njharman 11y ago
> The next time you have a fleeting thought about how internet radio sucks, and could be better—well, now you know what’s to blame. It’s copyright. Can be broadened to "why does <insert aspect of creative culture> suck, blame copyright.
- 6stringmerc 11y ago
  ...and, if you want to know why things are going to continue to suck with respect to Copyright, blame Congress for letting Disney and large corporations rig the game for their interests.
  - williamcotton 11y ago
    Wanna to help fix the problem? Just start building applications that honor protocols like Open Publish and encouraging artists to publish on public-access platforms. The existing infrastructure of contracts and payments are not working for authors wishing to engage in the commercial application of intellectual property. It's time for a change! https://github.com/blockai/openpublish https://github.com/blockai/openpublish https://github.com/blockai/openpublish-state-engine https://github.com/blockai/openpublish-state-engine https://www.berklee.edu/news/fair_music_report https://www.berklee.edu/news/fair_music_report
  - hga 11y ago
    We also have to blame the Supremes. The Constitution is reasonably clear about this in Article 1: Section. 8. The Congress shall have Power.... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; Perpetual copyright is most certainly not "for limited Times", but per Wikipedia's analysis of Eldred v. Ashcroft (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eldred_v._Ashcroft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eldred_v._Ashcroft): However, the major argument for the act that carried over into the case was that the Constitution specified that Congress only needed to set time limits for copyright, the length of which was left to their discretion. Thus, as long as the limit is not "forever," any limit set by Congress can be deemed constitutional. Although I suppose we should not be surprised, given how little respect they show for so much else of the Constitution, e.g. my current pet peeve, we have a right to keep arms, but not bear them outside our dwellings, another very crabbed interpretation of clear language.
    - coldpie 11y ago
      12,000 non-suicide gun deaths per year say "too fucking bad." Sorry, it's time to find a different hobby.
      - hga 11y ago
        300 million plus guns in the hands of 100 million plus citizens say "ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ" ... and as for my "hobby" of armed self-defense, that's a "too fucking bad" right back at you. But let's get back to topic: this right is enshrined in our highest law. You don't entirely like it (I'm assuming you're willing to call armed police to protect yourself), but by what principle do you propose to infringe it without, you know, the other ones that e.g. prevent the Congress from passing a bill of attainder that orders you and everyone else contributing to the Windows ecosystem into a computer free concentration camp.
        coldpie 11y ago
        It is a hobby, don't kid yourself. I would enthusiastically support a repeal of the 2nd amendment. It was a product of its time, and its time has passed. In any case, it is so incredibly vague that your argument can be used to support private ownership of nuclear weapons.
        JoeAltmaier 11y ago
        Untrue. To "bear arms" had a particular well-known meaning at the time of writing. So had "militia". The defense of Americans to keep arms is not a mysterious or strained interpretation. And since people haven't changed in 200 years, I'm not sure why the time passing has any meaning. Examples abound. Look to "The Battle of Athens" in 1946 for an early one. But I'm afraid I'm just feeding the troll. I detect no honest attempt to understand or discuss this topic.
        hga 11y ago
        Well, there is one thing he brought up that also has a parallel to the topic of hand. Weapons of mass destruction and trivial to make perfect digital copies do qualitatively change the facts on the ground in ways we suspect our Founders did not anticipate. And while there's no great interest let alone lobby for citizen possession of WMDs, in the digital media realm....
  - anon4 11y ago
    Let's just let the large corporations keep their rotten rodents effectively forever, given they pay a small fee (smaller than their lawyer fees, at least), and give everything else sane copyright terms.
happyscrappy 11y ago
Think of how crazy things are right now. With Spotify or Apple Music you can just make lists of all the music you want and record the output. You could do this with terrestrial radio(I did!) but you couldn't control what was played so it was quite different. The only thing stopping people from having every song they ever wanted for $10 is laziness.
- anon4 11y ago
  Or they could download from one of the many, many torrent sites? Both are about equally illegal, I think, though torrenting should net you a higher-quality copy, maybe even FLAC.
  - happyscrappy 11y ago
    One is easier and carries no risk.
- jandrese 11y ago
  Some DJs also get instructed to talk over the beginning and ends of songs to avoid people doing this. I remember being annoyed in the 90s that DJs would never STFU when the song started, but learned later that it was at the request of the cartels. Hopefully this practice died when the Internet and death of cassette tapes killed off radio mixtapes.
  - tempestn 11y ago
    Wow, do you have a source for that? Always irritated too, but I never considered there might be a reason for it other than incompetence.
    - jandrese 11y ago
      Only hearsay sadly.
- pconner 11y ago
  This is much more inconvenient than just pirating the music, and if you plan on subscribing to a streaming service long-term, there isn't any point in doing this since you'll just have access to the song through the paid service (and most services let you cache songs on mobile devices to avoid running out of data)
ohitsdom 11y ago
"It would be really difficult to track down every single composer for every song that’s played on the radio—so onerous that it would be nearly impossible to run a radio station." In 2015, this really shouldn't be too difficult to solve. Somehow, it isn't, so: "So under copyright law, radio stations and other entities purchase blanket licenses from associations like BMI and ASCAP, which lets them off the hook for everything they play." This would seem to screw smaller artists that aren't signed with big labels. Shouldn't this be easy to solve with software? Pay for what actually gets played. Blanket agreements only encourages stations to play composers covered by those agreements.
- michael_h 11y ago
  This is exactly my problem with how Spotify works. If I pay my $120 for a year and listen exclusively to one obscure artist, that artist will get a tiny,tiny fraction of the $80 that is payed out. Most of it will go to an artist that I probably can't stand. The explanations I've heard roughly equate to: it's too complicated. Oh really? If only there was a machine that could easily keep track of all that information, we'd be all set.
  - mfoy_ 11y ago
    But wouldn't that obscure artist also get a tiny fraction of the money paid by the larger group of people who only listen to popular artists, so it balances out?
    - michael_h 11y ago
      That works when more streams = more money. When users pay for premium, the revenue is capped. Artist payout depends on their 'market share' and it's a zero-sum game. http://www.spotifyartists.com/spotify-explained/#royalties-in-detail http://www.spotifyartists.com/spotify-explained/#royalties-i... Let's say that there are 40 million paying users, all streaming 500 songs a month...and then there's me, who only streams 5 songs a month (I'm busy, and I like throwing money away). So, there's 20,000,000,005 total streams that month, and $400 million in revenue. Spotify takes their cut, which leaves $280 million. My artist's share, according to bc: echo '(5 / 20000000005) * 280000000' | bc -l .06999999998040000000 Seven cents. ADDED: To clarify, seven cents for five plays isn't a bad rate at all. From the user's perspective, though, it can be offputting that I'm attracted to the platform because of a certain set of artists, and then my money goes elsewhere. I understand why they do it. Popular acts attract users, and users mean money. They gotta feed the monkey.

70 points by Amorymeltzer 11y ago

> The next time you have a fleeting thought about how internet radio sucks, and could be better—well, now you know what’s to blame. It’s copyright. Can be broadened to "why does <insert aspect of creative culture> suck, blame copyright.

6stringmerc 11y ago
...and, if you want to know why things are going to continue to suck with respect to Copyright, blame Congress for letting Disney and large corporations rig the game for their interests.
- williamcotton 11y ago
  Wanna to help fix the problem? Just start building applications that honor protocols like Open Publish and encouraging artists to publish on public-access platforms. The existing infrastructure of contracts and payments are not working for authors wishing to engage in the commercial application of intellectual property. It's time for a change! https://github.com/blockai/openpublish https://github.com/blockai/openpublish https://github.com/blockai/openpublish-state-engine https://github.com/blockai/openpublish-state-engine https://www.berklee.edu/news/fair_music_report https://www.berklee.edu/news/fair_music_report
- hga 11y ago
  We also have to blame the Supremes. The Constitution is reasonably clear about this in Article 1: Section. 8. The Congress shall have Power.... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; Perpetual copyright is most certainly not "for limited Times", but per Wikipedia's analysis of Eldred v. Ashcroft (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eldred_v._Ashcroft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eldred_v._Ashcroft): However, the major argument for the act that carried over into the case was that the Constitution specified that Congress only needed to set time limits for copyright, the length of which was left to their discretion. Thus, as long as the limit is not "forever," any limit set by Congress can be deemed constitutional. Although I suppose we should not be surprised, given how little respect they show for so much else of the Constitution, e.g. my current pet peeve, we have a right to keep arms, but not bear them outside our dwellings, another very crabbed interpretation of clear language.
  - coldpie 11y ago
    12,000 non-suicide gun deaths per year say "too fucking bad." Sorry, it's time to find a different hobby.
    - hga 11y ago
      300 million plus guns in the hands of 100 million plus citizens say "ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ" ... and as for my "hobby" of armed self-defense, that's a "too fucking bad" right back at you. But let's get back to topic: this right is enshrined in our highest law. You don't entirely like it (I'm assuming you're willing to call armed police to protect yourself), but by what principle do you propose to infringe it without, you know, the other ones that e.g. prevent the Congress from passing a bill of attainder that orders you and everyone else contributing to the Windows ecosystem into a computer free concentration camp.
      - coldpie 11y ago
        It is a hobby, don't kid yourself. I would enthusiastically support a repeal of the 2nd amendment. It was a product of its time, and its time has passed. In any case, it is so incredibly vague that your argument can be used to support private ownership of nuclear weapons.
        JoeAltmaier 11y ago
        Untrue. To "bear arms" had a particular well-known meaning at the time of writing. So had "militia". The defense of Americans to keep arms is not a mysterious or strained interpretation. And since people haven't changed in 200 years, I'm not sure why the time passing has any meaning. Examples abound. Look to "The Battle of Athens" in 1946 for an early one. But I'm afraid I'm just feeding the troll. I detect no honest attempt to understand or discuss this topic.
        hga 11y ago
        Well, there is one thing he brought up that also has a parallel to the topic of hand. Weapons of mass destruction and trivial to make perfect digital copies do qualitatively change the facts on the ground in ways we suspect our Founders did not anticipate. And while there's no great interest let alone lobby for citizen possession of WMDs, in the digital media realm....
- anon4 11y ago
  Let's just let the large corporations keep their rotten rodents effectively forever, given they pay a small fee (smaller than their lawyer fees, at least), and give everything else sane copyright terms.

happyscrappy 11y ago

Think of how crazy things are right now. With Spotify or Apple Music you can just make lists of all the music you want and record the output. You could do this with terrestrial radio(I did!) but you couldn't control what was played so it was quite different. The only thing stopping people from having every song they ever wanted for $10 is laziness.

anon4 11y ago
Or they could download from one of the many, many torrent sites? Both are about equally illegal, I think, though torrenting should net you a higher-quality copy, maybe even FLAC.
- happyscrappy 11y ago
  One is easier and carries no risk.
jandrese 11y ago
Some DJs also get instructed to talk over the beginning and ends of songs to avoid people doing this. I remember being annoyed in the 90s that DJs would never STFU when the song started, but learned later that it was at the request of the cartels. Hopefully this practice died when the Internet and death of cassette tapes killed off radio mixtapes.
- tempestn 11y ago
  Wow, do you have a source for that? Always irritated too, but I never considered there might be a reason for it other than incompetence.
  - jandrese 11y ago
    Only hearsay sadly.
pconner 11y ago
This is much more inconvenient than just pirating the music, and if you plan on subscribing to a streaming service long-term, there isn't any point in doing this since you'll just have access to the song through the paid service (and most services let you cache songs on mobile devices to avoid running out of data)

ohitsdom 11y ago

"It would be really difficult to track down every single composer for every song that’s played on the radio—so onerous that it would be nearly impossible to run a radio station." In 2015, this really shouldn't be too difficult to solve. Somehow, it isn't, so: "So under copyright law, radio stations and other entities purchase blanket licenses from associations like BMI and ASCAP, which lets them off the hook for everything they play." This would seem to screw smaller artists that aren't signed with big labels. Shouldn't this be easy to solve with software? Pay for what actually gets played. Blanket agreements only encourages stations to play composers covered by those agreements.

michael_h 11y ago
This is exactly my problem with how Spotify works. If I pay my $120 for a year and listen exclusively to one obscure artist, that artist will get a tiny,tiny fraction of the $80 that is payed out. Most of it will go to an artist that I probably can't stand. The explanations I've heard roughly equate to: it's too complicated. Oh really? If only there was a machine that could easily keep track of all that information, we'd be all set.
- mfoy_ 11y ago
  But wouldn't that obscure artist also get a tiny fraction of the money paid by the larger group of people who only listen to popular artists, so it balances out?
  - michael_h 11y ago
    That works when more streams = more money. When users pay for premium, the revenue is capped. Artist payout depends on their 'market share' and it's a zero-sum game. http://www.spotifyartists.com/spotify-explained/#royalties-in-detail http://www.spotifyartists.com/spotify-explained/#royalties-i... Let's say that there are 40 million paying users, all streaming 500 songs a month...and then there's me, who only streams 5 songs a month (I'm busy, and I like throwing money away). So, there's 20,000,000,005 total streams that month, and $400 million in revenue. Spotify takes their cut, which leaves $280 million. My artist's share, according to bc: echo '(5 / 20000000005) * 280000000' | bc -l .06999999998040000000 Seven cents. ADDED: To clarify, seven cents for five plays isn't a bad rate at all. From the user's perspective, though, it can be offputting that I'm attracted to the platform because of a certain set of artists, and then my money goes elsewhere. I understand why they do it. Popular acts attract users, and users mean money. They gotta feed the monkey.