Signup for a folk alley account


June 26, 2007 is a Day of Silence for Internet Radio

June 26, 2007

dayofsilence_07.gif
Tuesday, June 26, Internet broadcasters come together to support a Day of Silence to demonstrate what the Web would sound like if music streaming was forced to shut down due to increased royalty rates. Folk Alley has decided not to go silent but instead to be loud and proud. Please, if you feel strongly about our service, tell your U.S. Senator and Representative. Already, Congress is hearing your collective voices and they are taking actions to counteract the new rates put in place by the Copyright Royalty Board, which are set to be enacted on July 15. The proposed rates are more than 7 times those paid by satellite broadcasts (radio does not pay these royalties) and must be supported by a complex reporting system that will require many, many man hours each month. The fees will be retroactive to Jan. 1, 2006 and could eventually total more than Folk Alley's yearly budget.

Visit Folk Alley's Save Net Radio page for a full list of U.S. Representatives that have officially added their support to H.R. 2060, the Internet Equality Act and additional information on making your voice heard. This royalty increase affects all webcasters, commercial and public without taking size, public service or financial situation into account (small, independent and educational webcasters will be especially hard hit). We love artists, that's why we want to be around for a long time to come to promote and support folk music, spreading its reach around the globe through Internet streaming.

Speak up! Be loud on the Day of Silence!

Posted by Ann VerWiebe at June 26, 2007 12:01 AM


Comments

My represenatives know how I feel, but I'll go on the record here as stating that, IMHO, this move by the CRB was nothing short of a protection grab, a way for the big dogs of the music biz to further limit public venues for anything other than their own mass-produced product.

There were too many new artists slipping thru the safeguards they have built over the years to control music, and they had to find some way to stifle that!

Posted by: Jim Pipkin at June 26, 2007 12:30 PM

There was a really good article in this month's Paste Magazine that quotes John Simson from SoundExchange as saying, "The attitude that really has to change is the idea that the people playing this music on the Web are somehow doing artists a favor" and, "Does having so many Web stations disperse the market so much that it hurts the artist?"

Both of these quotes just blow me away. I'm not saying that we are here to save the artists souls, but how would airplay hurt a musicians career? Do listeners say, "Gee, all of this variety, I really wish there were only a couple of choices, that would make me buy a lot more CDs"? This is the guy behind the CRB's decision. SoundExchange did their homework, they were much more prepared for this fight and so they took home the winning flag. Hopefully, the folks now representing pubcasters can make their case in an effective way. Who I really feel sorry for are the college stations that have lost their terrestrial outlets and now broadcast only online. They have no revenue, but this system does not take that into account - it's "spin" based.

Posted by: Ann E VerWiebe at June 26, 2007 12:41 PM

Jim,

My friend Phil Gallos from Saranac Lake, NY wholeheartedly agrees with you. This is what he wrote in a letter to me back in March:

“As I see it, this is not an issue of getting royalties to deserving artists. It is an issue of control -- the control of what the citizenry may hear by a relatively small number of powerful corporations and individuals, who have the most to gain through this fee schedule while almost everyone else loses. This kind control, while enriching those who hold it, impoverishes society and thwarts democracy."

Couldn't have said it any better.


Posted by: Linda Fahey at June 26, 2007 3:17 PM

I went briefly to SoundExchange's website today. Their spin on this makes me sick to my stomach. I listen to very little commercial radio (eschewing it for NPR for the most part), largely because the playlists are so narrow, and the DJs are so obnoxious. Any music I have bought (Vienna Teng, Eddie from Ohio to name a few) in the past year or so, I've bought because I heard them on Folk Alley. I can't see how killing internet radio would be good for the artists. It might not hurt Top 40 or Top 20 artists much, since they get so much airtime on traditional radio, but indie artists don't stand much of a chance of being heard on large corporate radio.

My 2¢

Deb

Posted by: Deb Holz at June 27, 2007 12:00 AM

I see showers of confetti over the FOLK ALLEY placard/logo-sign on the main page... I'm excited - what are we celebrating!?

Posted by: JoLynn Braswell at June 27, 2007 12:41 AM

Although I see a few representives from my state on the list, I don't see mine. I will be contacting him.

Posted by: Nina Gray at June 27, 2007 12:48 PM

I wrote to my rep, Betty McCollum

Posted by: Richard Schletty at July 3, 2007 4:23 PM

These people are not artist centred or even music centred they have the Great God dollar in their view. They have no interest in the artist, per se. This is the narrow minded and short termist view of the accountant. Do they they not see that dispertion of an artists tracks will encourage people to either download (payable) or buy the CD's (payable). As you can see from the spelling I'm from the UK, we don't have this problem as yet, maybe we have accountants with better long term vision. As we cannot write to our congressional representative or senator (we don't have them), is there anything listeners in the UK or anywhere else outside of the USA can do to help?

Posted by: Katherine Wadsworth at July 4, 2007 4:05 PM

At the same time their could be a very natural backlash in the favor of indy musicians who own their own rights which the mainstream industry may not be expecting.

More music is being purchased only as singles through trends like Ipods. More asrtists are starting to records and release singles. The mainstream industry has already screwed the pooch in terms of unatainable tickets prices. They engage in all kinds of practices that this musicisn would not really want to be a part of. As the distribution mechanisms change, then one has to think of what happened with micro brews in this country. Perhaps stations like Fok alley would seek more independent musicians that are not encombered and who do not favor Association made royalty fees. Perhaps there is a new association to be made.

all the best
jerry h
dream kitchen
www.peacedrum.org

Posted by: Jerry H at July 29, 2007 7:33 AM

Folk Alley is very fond of independent artists, and those on smaller labels who seem genuinely interested in getting music to the people. However, SoundExchange does not distinguish - we will have to pay the same for artists that are connected with SoundExchange as for those that are not. SoundExchange says that they will hold the money in trust until the artists come forward to claim it, and after a certain amount of time, it will revert to the organization. In order for Folk Alley not to pay royalties, we would have to negotiate contracts with each artist individually and figure out a way to separate works from those artists from others, including musicians signed to major labels that it would be remiss for us to ignore. The entire situation is very bad regardless.

Posted by: Ann E VerWiebe at July 30, 2007 9:49 AM

Registered users can post comments in the blog. Please register or log in to share your views.

Support Folk Alley During Our Spring Fund Drive!

 

Recent Topics

 

 

September 2014
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
   1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30            


September 2014


August 2014


July 2014


June 2014


April 2014


March 2014


February 2014


January 2014


December 2013


November 2013


October 2013


September 2013


August 2013


July 2013


June 2013


May 2013


April 2013


March 2013


February 2013


December 2012


November 2012


October 2012


September 2012


August 2012


July 2012


June 2012


May 2012


April 2012


March 2012


February 2012


January 2012


December 2011


November 2011


October 2011


September 2011


August 2011


July 2011


June 2011


May 2011


April 2011


March 2011


February 2011


January 2011


December 2010


November 2010


October 2010


September 2010


August 2010


July 2010


May 2010


April 2010


March 2010


February 2010


January 2010


December 2009


November 2009


October 2009


September 2009


August 2009


July 2009


June 2009


May 2009


April 2009


March 2009


February 2009


January 2009


December 2008


November 2008


October 2008


September 2008


August 2008


July 2008


June 2008


May 2008


April 2008


March 2008


February 2008


January 2008


December 2007


November 2007


October 2007


September 2007


August 2007


July 2007


June 2007


May 2007


April 2007


March 2007


February 2007


January 2007


December 2006


November 2006


October 2006


September 2006


August 2006


July 2006


June 2006


May 2006


April 2006


March 2006


February 2006


January 2006


December 2005


November 2005


October 2005


September 2005


August 2005


July 2005


June 2005


May 2005


April 2005


March 2005


February 2005


January 2005


December 2004


November 2004


October 2004


September 2004


August 2004


July 2004


June 2004


May 2004


April 2004


March 2004


February 2004


January 2004


December 2003


November 2003


October 2003


September 2003


August 2003