|
the mp3 way: The World according to CARP
"Simply put, the CARP (Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel) recommended
royalty rate structure, if implemented, would transform one of the most
vibrant and diverse music distribution channels into broadcast radio's ugly
twin.
"The panel recommendations would provide a small set of firms that already
control one media platform an inordinate advantage to compete and control
the emerging webcasting sector. The implications represent not only a blow
to nearly of century of public policy, but a profound loss for webcasters,
musicians and consumers." - Eric De Fontenay on CARP.
About all you can say for most 'regular' radio stations is: they give you
non-stop background noise, which is great if you're working in a garage. But
if you want to actually listen to music, forget it, because
programming is made up of endless repeats inserted almost haphazardly
between mindless commercial breaks, or 'volunteers' begging painfully for
listener donations. And that's about it.
Nor is there any real difference between public and commercial radio
stations. Both need large injections of money to keep their staffs living in
the manner to which they've become accustomed, and to keep them on the air,
and both have to dance to the tune of their sponsors, most of whom can't
dance and, to make matters worse, can't hear either.
It's a very sad state of affairs - unless you're one of the increasing
millions of music lovers with a computer. And if you are, you have access to
literally thousands of non-commercial Net webcasts so far reaching in terms
of geographic location, and so far ranging in terms of content, as to almost
beggar a description.
If you want to get into the traditional radio business, as part of the
set-up process you'll need all kinds of resources, you'll need to regularly
abase yourself before the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America),
you'll need cash-flow projections, an iron-clad business plan, limitless
capital, and a million other things
In direct contrast, just about anyone with a little savvy, a computer and a
broadband connection can become a webcaster.
Through webcasts, you can provide music and other content from around the
world, with little danger of your listeners having to hear the same thing
twice. Unless they want to.
Of course, not all webcasts are commercial-free and plenty of entrepreneurs
bent on getting rich quick have ID'd them as the sine-wave of the future.
But the Fulsome Five record labels, ably advised by the RIAA, also thought
they'd get rich(er) on digital audio, and they're currently seeking
salvation on their hands and knees.
And anyway, if you don't want to listen to commercial webcasts, they're
easily avoided - far more so than in the 'real' world - and it's no big deal
to reach stations with great programming which exist because their owners
want to make their livings by providing genuinely worthwhile listener
services and experiences.
For them, there aren't any rules determining what can happen during a
webcast. No sponsors call the tune, no self-appointees say what can or
can't go on the air, and there are absolutely no restrictions on hours.
In other words, as Eric said in his article on CARP, "Webcasting affords an
opportunity for niche operators to meet the need of otherwise unmet markets,
bringing programming that would otherwise never see the light of day."
All of this, of course, absolutely terrifies 'traditional' broadcasters and
most of their content suppliers (ie, the record labels) who have been used
to having everything their own way for so long they've come to think it's
the natural order of the universe.
"their logic is almost impossible to follow"
Boiled down, Webcasts usually mean server-controlled, real-time encoded
video or audio transmissions which any number of people can enjoy at the
same time, provided they have the appropriate hardware and software on their
computers. If you want more on the subject, check out Dr. David Moser's
description in "Copyright and the Digital Distribution of Music"
In the meanwhile, webcasts make fantastic use of the new digital
communication resources and give people who'd never otherwise have a hope in
hell of reaching others a way to contribute music, ideas and in fact
anything they can think of, to the global community.
Big Guys and Little Guys play on the same field under the same rules (a very
nasty situation as far as the Big Guys are concerned).
And there are no serious government restrictions ...
... or rather, there weren't any until February 20, when the US Copyright
Office's Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel (CARP) decreed that under the
1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act, webcasters would have to pay 0.14
cents per song, per listener, to the record labels, while offline stations
would pay 0.07 cents per song, per listener.
When first mooted, CARP was CRAP. Literally. The Copyright Royalty
Arbitration Panel. It was quickly changed to Copyright Arbitration Royalty
Panel. But to 'carp' is to talk querulously or to find fault. So the
change-around didn't really achieve much, and either or both appear to work
when applied to the panel.
Stephen H. Wildstrom said in a March 29 BusinessWeek Online article:
"The arbitrators ended up calling for a royalty of 0.07 cents per song for
Webcasts that retransmit broadcasts and 0.14 cents for Internet-only
streaming, plus a 9% surcharge for ephemeral copies. The arbitrators based
their decision on 26 agreements that had been successfully negotiated
between individual Webcasters and the RIAA.
"Unfortunately, their logic is almost impossible to follow. For one thing,
only 1 of the 26 - Yahoo! - is still a going concern. And the RIAA insisted
that details of the agreements be kept secret, so vast amounts of the text,
including virtually all information on the critical Yahoo! deal, have been
blacked out in the copies of the report available to the public."
In other words, it's a load of CARP. But it's not so much the rates
themselves as how they're applied, as Eric pointed out in his article. "In
the face of decades of public policy favoring new markets and competitors,
CARP has proposed a royalty rate structure that would penalize emerging new
entrants (pure webcasters) in favor of the dominant broadcasters who
obviously have an interest in extending their control in broadcast to this
new medium," he said.
Tuning in
It's a given that listeners want good music and they can get it - and more -
from Net radio adventurers who are out there trying new things and coming up
with a lot of great new ideas on how music, and data, can be disseminated
online to everyone's advantage: not just to the advantage of a tiny handful
of greedy, unscrupulous associations and corporations whose bottom-line
motivations are confined to exactly that - the bottom line.
They don't have the faintest idea on how to compete fairly (or successfully
; ) in this new digital world. Nor do they want to. It wouldn't be in their
best interests to allow the emergence of talent not owned and controlled by
them. So they're trying desperately to apply their fundamental offline
business philosophy to the digital arena - and that is principally, buy 'em
up, grind 'em down, or just plain stomp 'em.
Be that as it may, the Net is the only medium that's ever existed where
consumers with no money or resources can actually significantly pressure and
influence manufacturers, retailers, heavy duty trade and industry
organizations, and so on, and there's absolutely nothing the latter can do
about it.
Even more interesting, more than a few of these 'consumers' are kids -
teenagers, or just over, and not-yet-teenagers. They have the brains and
gear to keep coming up with innovations which time after time knock the big
guys on their (ahem) asses, keeping them continually off-balance.
And so it'll be as long as people can buy computers and plug them into the
Net.
Related MusicDish e-Journal Articles:
» An Alternative Model to CARP (2002-04-18)
» DCMA could lead to 'mass exodus from the Internet by college radio,' warns student broadcast group (2002-04-18)
» CARP Divines A Market Rate (2002-04-12)
» CARP Defies a Century of Public Policy (2002-04-05)
back
| top
|
