Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan Ash" <danash@attglobal.net> To: <Loopers-Delight@loopers-delight.com> Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 16:04 PM Subject: Re: OT: CARP passed- this sucks. > I'm afraid I don't have alot of the background and finer points of this > discussion, but I feel a rant coming on... > > My favorite internet radio station has already succumbed. > > Isn't his whole fee paradigm based on the assertion that internet radio > is a digital copy of the source? The unprecedented rates charged the > broadcaster is because it is a digital medium and the RETROACTIVE nature > of the charges which will be presented to the providers will drive > smaller internet broadcasting outfits and college radis OFF THE AIR. > Personally I think the sound quality SUCKS - I have yet to hear an MP3 > that has the sonic character of the original recording. Streaming > audio? HAHAHAHAHA. This is not a digital copy of the source. If I > like something I hear on the internet - I buy the material (from the > ARTIST, if possible). > > The government seems to be carving up the internet to the advantage of > the mega-corporations, just as it did with the *formerly* public > frequency bands that comprise radio and TV airwaves. This is as big a > theft as I can imagine. > > I see this as another power-grab (not just a money grab, which any MBA > would advise their employer to run with). The US legislation is > ANTI-COMPETITIVE, and designed to monopolize the medium. Fees or no > fees, this is bad for art. The record companies have been sucking the > life out of artists since they positioned themselves between the artists > and the public in the 1950's. They're not there to 'publish' music, > they're there to RESTRICT what you hear so that particular artists can > generate revenue streams -for the record companies. > > And please don't say that a musician/artist needs to sell T-shirts to > develop a revenue stream - that's just capitulating to those that want > to control what types of music get heard on the internet, and whose > clients are played in each genre. > For me, the potential power of the internet is to BREAK DOWN the > stranglehold of the record companies. I am not suggesting that artists > that can hustle and get their music out there should not be paid. I > was/am very uncomfortable with the whole file-sharing thing and think > that is was essentially a shameful ripoff of the artists. EXCEPT for > the artists that were willing to put examples of their work out there to > develop a fan base. > > I have to believe a new fee-based paradigm can be developed. A mix of > fee-based play and free-based (hmmmmm - that doesn't sound quite right). > > Yes I wrote both my state senators BEFORE the legislation was passed. I > expect that I'll try to find out if they voted in the peoples' interest, > and I do intend to hold them accountable. > > Sorry about the length/tone of this outburst. I'm ready to get back to > looping. You've paraphrased something I lamented about but didn't post here some time ago: Someday if we don't watch out, "Freedom" will just be "Feedom". And that awful bit about having the gold, and making the rules, will actually be more than a grousing statement. But that's darker than I think it is right now. I think your webcaster may have had more considerations than just the royalty fees, unless they've had a visit from the RIAA themselves... for instance, a lot of companies all over the world used 9-11 as an excuse to lay off employees - oh, excuse me, "downsize" - and for the most part I think they were called on it in public. One example being British Airways. Try to find out from your webcaster if there's more to the story. Or let me know and I'll follow up. Stephen P. Goodman EarthLight Productions * http://www.earthlight.net/Studios - The Free Loop of the Week! http://www.earthlight.net/Gallery_Front.html - Cartoons! http://www.earthlight.net/HiddenTrack.html - More Cartoons!