Thursday, July 12, 2007

SoundExchange to require DRM in exchange for lower royalties?

Washington Post:
SoundExchange offered an annual fee cap of $50,000, if the broadcaster reports everything that is played and adopts technology that limits the ability of listeners to copy broadcasts. The annual fee can be deducted from the royalties paid to artists and record labels.
I sure hope this doesn't mean true DRM, which currently means we would have to start limiting our streams to Windows Media.

There are other ways to thwart stream ripping, the simplest means we stop sending real time metadata on the MP3 streams with the now playing track info.

Labels: ,


Blogger fire-belly said...

Why doesn't regular radio have to use DRM??? This is such a stupid turn of events, what else can we do?

July 13, 2007 1:35 PM  
Anonymous foodandart said...

Rusty, the whole DRM thing is load of horseshit anyhow. The RIAA toads don't get that the analog gap can still be jumped - I was doing that with my computer running Mac OS 8.1 eight years ago when web radio was in its infancy. No big. Windoze media blows chunks but as long as sound goes to a set of speakers, there's ALWAYS a way to make recordings of music. Just like when as a kid I'd run the radio broadcasts to my cassette deck.

Oh! The horror!

If SoundExchange pulls a fast one, and does a 180 on their 'stay' do us all a favor, and save yourself financially and shut down.

You do NOT owe your financial future to a bunch of talentless tapeworms who are indebted to billionaire stakeholders.

Their claims of getting proper renumeration to the artists is a hot steaming pile of bull. The artists generally come dead last when the payments are made - but by God, you know full well that the people who sit on the SoundExchange board are making more money than the artists they *claim* to represent.

The RIAA labels so far this year have seen a 20% decline in sales - they need webcasters FAR more than they let on.

The ideal sitution is that everyone shuts down, and puts a boycott music message on their webpages.. how long do you think it would take them to blink?

Webcasters hold the upper hand, it's the reason they're putting out mixed messages right now. I'm in the Arbitron/Nielsen ratings survey - have been for years and believe me, the whole industry is shitting itself precisely because of listeners like myself that have turned completely away from the terrestrial broadcast Clear Channels.. I mean really - how many more times do I need to hear Free Bird? Sweet Jesus, what noise!

Fuck 'em. Call their bluff if they try to screw you..


July 14, 2007 7:24 AM  
Anonymous Daniel Axelrod said...

Doesn't fading songs into each other limit the ability of listeners to make copies of broadcast songs?

July 14, 2007 11:21 AM  
Blogger Rusty Hodge said...

Yes, all our songs are segued together, so any "streamripped" songs will be have their beginnings and ends messed up. Just like making a recording off of FM radio.

Remember, the RIAA used to say "Home taping is killing music" back in the 80s.

July 14, 2007 12:44 PM  
Anonymous Daniel Axelrod said...

What I'm suggesting is that segueing together songs should already fulfill SoundExchange's requirement of adopting "technology that limits the ability of listeners to copy broadcasts".

BTW, at 12:04 EST on the 15th, it's wonderful to hear you still on the air.

July 14, 2007 9:04 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home