Internet Radio Reprieve, Sen. Clinton and Obama

[lotus]

Well, as the elections are showing up in the US I just want you to brief you on the correspondence I had with Senator Clinton and Senator Obama in the last months regarding RIAA..In July last year I had no idea of the republican candidates, so I did not write them.

We all know, that politicians in this special situation cannot give a definite answer, so please do not comment them in a negative way (Including Vax!). Please take the as a prove, that, as the signature of the senators is under the written document, they have heard about it and felt it important enough to write (better said have some assistant writing) an answer.

Lotus

PS: (The same mail was sent to Senator Obama and Senator Clinton, therefore one name always in brackets)

Written on July 10th, 2007 from Lotus:

Quote:

Re: RIAA Fees for Internet Radio

Dear Senator Clinton (Obama),

first of all I would like to express my hope for your understanding, that I am directing this mail to you from Germany, as the issue of this mail is my concern about an upcoming US legislation, which has worldwide consequences, which might have been overseen during the deliberations in your house of representatives and in the senate.

The RIAA increased the royalties for broadcasting music over the Internet to such an extend, that most of the non commercial (hobby) broadcasters have to turn off their stream, as the fees would ruin the owners of these stations.

As you may know, many of these private, absolutely non commercial broadcasters serve non mainstream music, sometimes some niches with only a handful listeners worldwide.

Since more than 3 years I am listening to the absolutely non commercial Internet broadcast of AuralMoon, serving the world with music progressive rock genre. To this genre belong so name full groups as Pink Floyd, Genesis, Yes, only to name a few. But in the 80's this sound got lost, although it continued living among a small group of enthusiasts. Thanks to AuralMoon and other Internet broadcasting stations of the same genre in the net, progressive rock is emerging again among a wider spread of music lovers, with fantastic new, young groups. We buy the CD's based on the broadcast we hear there and some artists on the playlist join us to discuss their music.

Please allow me to give you some facts about AuralMoon and the meaning of the new RIAA fews to it. Aural Moon has a maximum of listeners at 56 kbs of 178 people. If you donate a minimum of 50 US$ a year, you have access to a 128 kbs stream, but patrons are not that much, I think about 50. So maximum listeners (and this worldwide) are I think 250. If we take into account an average of 130 listeners a day and 6 songs per hour (pr songs last longer than normal ones), the yearly RIAA fee would be aprox US$ 6200 a year. Taking into account 50 patrons at 50 US$ a year the donations come to US$ 2500. We have to add to the US§ 6200 the cost of broadcasting, buying new CD's etc., so you can see, that AuralMoon has to close down, as the owner is not a millionaire.

AuralMoon is an international community with members and listeners all over the world. So if this RIAA fees come into force, not only US-Citizens will be affected, but many people worldwide. And this is not only the case of AuralMoon, but of I guess hundreds of US based non commercial Internet stations, taking away the possibility of musical culture of all aspects away.

Senator Clinton (Obama), as a candidate running for being the next President Of The United States, I personally think, that your thoughts should also be in us, non US citizens and living in our respective countries when laws are made which have an international consequences even in this small segment of having fun with music.

So, please, try to stop these senseless RIAA royalty rules, as even the absolute majority of artist do not want them.

Thank you for your patience, and please feel free to join us to listen excellent music and for a chat at www.auralmoon.com

Lothar + full name and adress

Unquote

Received on July 13th, 2007 from Senator Hilary Clinton

Quote:

Thank you for your e-mail. It is very important to me to know the issues
that are of concern to you. A growing number of my constituents are now
choosing to communicate with me via e-mail. I hope you will understand
that, because of the volume and range of e-mails I receive, it can take
some time to send a response that specifically addresses the subject
raised in your message. I do, however, want to let you know immediately
that your message has been received. Hearing from you and others through
e-mail helps me to quickly learn the views and interests of New Yorkers
and others, which is very helpful to me in my work in the United States
Senate. I hope you will continue to monitor my work through my website
at http://clinton.senate.gov, and I welcome hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton

Unquote

Received on July 17th 2007 from Senator Barack Obama:

Quote

Dear Lothar:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the Copyright Royalty Board’s rate increase decision and its effect on small webcasters. I appreciate hearing your thoughts on this issue.

The royalty rate for webcasters has proven to be a controversial subject, with small webcasters hoping to become viable, competitive alternatives to large commercial radio stations. As you know, many of these small webcasters offer a variety of music unavailable to a wide audience through other sources.

Regulations set by the enactment of the Small Webcasters Settlement Act of 2002, which favored small webcasters, recently expired and the regulations had to be revisited. As you are aware, in March, 2007, the Copyright Royalty Board issued its decision, which establishes new rates for commercial and noncommercial webcasters. The Board considered the comments of small commercial and non-commercial webcasters, who sought continuation of a fee based solely according to revenue. Ultimately, the Board rejected this benefit for small webcasters, opting instead for a flat-rate fee and a per song per listener basis. When making this decision, the Board cited the difficulty of distinguishing small and large webcasters, as well as their own lack of statutory authority to carve out royalty rate niches for the emergent business models promoted by small webcasters.

The Internet Radio Equality Act (S. 1353), introduced in the Senate on May 10, 2007, would reverse the decision by the Copyright Royalty Board. This legislation is currently being considered by the Senate Judiciary Committee. While I am not a member of this committee, I will certainly keep your thoughts in mind when it comes to the Senate floor for a vote.

Again, thank you for raising this issue with me. Please stay in touch.

Sincerely,

Barack Obama
United States Senator

Unquote

Received on Feb 4th 2008 from Senator Hilary Clinton:
Quote:

Dear Mr. Schmidt:
Thank you for taking the time to write to me regarding the new royalty rates for online radio. I always enjoy hearing from New Yorkers about challenging public policy issues that are important to them, and I particularly appreciate your concerns regarding the future of internet radio. As you may know, I am a strong supporter of maintaining an open Internet that fosters innovation. No other communications medium in recent history has had such a profound impact on the expression of speech, education, the dissemination of information and the exchange of ideas.
Online radio is a great example of how the Internet has helped to cultivate innovation and offered consumers access to new and personalized information. But the great technological and commercial progress that has come with the ongoing development of the Internet has also brought with it numerous new public policy dilemmas, such as how to properly balance copyright protection for music and other property with the innovation that the Internet continues to cultivate.
As you know, in March 2007 the Copyright Royalty Board (CRB) proposed a new online radio royalty structure, which would amend the system that has been in place since 2002 and establish a new scale for royalties charged to internet radio companies on a per-song, per-listener basis. The proposed rates begin at 0.08 cents per song per listener, retroactive to January 1, 2006 and could reach 0.19 cents per song per listener in 2010. In early July 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. C ircuit rejected the request of a number of impacted webcasters that the implementation of the new rates be delayed pending their appeal of the CRB's decision, and the new rates went into effect on July 15.
Since that time, however, Sound Exchange, the organization that collects online radio royalties for the Recording Industry Association of America, and a broad coalition of webcasters have been negotiating potential compromise agreements on royalty rates. As those negotiations continue, I will continue to monitor this situation with the hope that they produce a fair and equitable resolution for all sides.
Thank you again for sharing your concerns regarding this important internet radio issue with me. Please be assured that I will continue to follow this issue closely and that I will keep your views in mind in the future as the situation plays out. For more information on my support for an open internet and other important issues before the United States Senate, please visit http://clinton.senate.gov .
Sincerely,
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton

Unquote


Thats it..

[Roger -Dot- Lee(Admin)]

Damn, Lotus! When did you move to New York? And why didn't you tell us? We'd have thrown you a Welcome to America party!

I'm going to let the rest of it speak for itself.

[Rick and Roll]

Yes, the NY thing is exactly why she is fading and Obama is picking up momentum. Although there is usually no salient replies, in this case, certain tendancies come out in the responses. On a personal level, I gleaned a lot from a small paragraph.

Just wanted to say that it was a very well-thought out and welcome letter.

Thanks Lotus!

[VAXman(Admin)]

Originally Posted by Roger -Dot- Lee

Damn, Lotus! When did you move to New York? And why didn't you tell us? We'd have thrown you a Welcome to America party!

I'm going to let the rest of it speak for itself.

You beat me to Roger. Welcome to America Lotus.

[VAXman(Admin)]

Originally Posted by Rick and Roll

Yes, the NY thing is exactly why she is fading and Obama is picking up momentum. Although there is usually no salient replies, in this case, certain tendancies come out in the responses. On a personal level, I gleaned a lot from a small paragraph.

Just wanted to say that it was a very well-thought out and welcome letter.

Thanks Lotus!

Rick, I've received correspondence from all of my representatives! My district congressman Rep. Christopher Smith [R] was the first one to correspond to me and he (or his office) did so via US mail with a letter that is actually signed -- whether it's his actual signature cannot be proven but it reads like a form letter. I received a canned email response from Sen. Frank Lautenberg's [D] camp. It didn't address any of the specifics which I wrote to him about, so I believe it to be just a form letter like response too. Just recently, months after my contact, I received a response from Sen. Bob Menendez [D] via US Mail. It too read like a form letter. All three of the responses were worded very much like those Lotus received from Clinton and Obama. These letters mention the issues and the IREA, etc. (of which we are all keenly aware) but none of these letters ever seem to indicate the representative's real stance on the issue. "... I will certainly keep your thoughts in mind when it comes to the Senate floor for a vote." and "... I will keep your views in mind in the future as the situation plays out." are statements obviously meant placate us but they don't seem to offer much hope.

Anyway, I realize, as I hope that others reading this do, that most representatives do not personally answer letters from their constituents. Much of the time, any response is simply a form letter response to an issue. Lotus's would seem to indicate the "form letter" response too, especially since it doesn't bother to address that he is from the newest US state of Germany that has, apparently, been annexed to NY.

To all reading this: This is an issue that should be taken up with congress, not the executive branch or would be hopefuls (albeit, one or both of Lotus's contacts will return to the Senate). If you are going to write a letter concerning this issue, please find your representatives and write to them! Make certain that your letter clearly indicates that you are their constituent. If you write your state's senators, clearly indicate that you are a resident and voter in the state they represent. If you are writing your house representative, find your district's rep. and be certain to state that you live and vote in his/her district.

My Rep. makes local visits and I spoke with him at a town meeting many months ago. I was amazed to see that he was actually fairly well versed on the whole RIAA/Internet radio issue, so don't think that they aren't aware of it! What WE (internet radio listeners) need to do is impress upon them how aware of this issue that WE are! Very few people ever write their representatives. Now, if one of us writes to our particular representative(s), he/she/they might not take notice but if 100 or 1000 of us do the same, we might stand a better chance of being heard.

[Rick and Roll]

Sorry - Actually I meant to say was the letter from Lotus was well-thought out and welcome.

Clinton's was a form letter and Obama's was too, but the Obama rep actually took the time to actually answer the question. That's what I meant when I said you can tell the difference between the two.

I'm not much into who's who in this race. But a simple reply is very telling about personalities. It's subtle, but you can tell Clinton looks right past people when she talks. At least Obama will speak to you. Now I don't know much about anybody in the race, it's just an observation.

Back to Lotus's letter, while it is true that the local, state, and congressional reps are the best way to go, since Lotus is overseas I thought it was a pretty cool thing to do. Whether it's effective or not (probably not) is open for debate, but I'm sure it made him feel better.

[NorCalKurt]

Nice job Lotus... but, I find it hard to believe anything a politician says.... call me cynical.

[VAXman(Admin)]

Originally Posted by Rick and Roll

Clinton's was a form letter and Obama's was too, but the Obama rep actually took the time to actually answer the question. That's what I meant when I said you can tell the difference between the two.

I hate to drop a 'bomba' on the Obama response but it is virtually, verbatim, what I received from Frank Lautenberg many months ago.

Originally Posted by Rick and Roll

I'm not much into who's who in this race. But a simple reply is very telling about personalities. It's subtle, but you can tell Clinton looks right past people when she talks. At least Obama will speak to you. Now I don't know much about anybody in the race, it's just an observation.

Hopefully, this will not to degrade this into a politics thread but I have similar convictions about HRC.

Originally Posted by Rick and Roll

Whether it's effective or not (probably not) is open for debate, but I'm sure it made him feel better.

It could be effective if more people would do the same.

[Wojtek]

Fantastic effort, Lotus. Maybe I don't know US reality and that's why I'm flabbergasted but for me it looks almost surrealistic to receive correspondence from both presidential candidates.

[gr8sho92]

Welcome to the art of deception.

[Yesspaz]

I don't mean to offend, and I'm all for small webcasters, but how should internet radio rights EVER be a deciding factor on voting for president? I love AM, but there are bigger fish to fry.

My opinion....

[VAXman(Admin)]

Originally Posted by Yesspaz

I don't mean to offend, and I'm all for small webcasters, but how should internet radio rights EVER be a deciding factor on voting for president? I love AM, but there are bigger fish to fry.

My opinion....

I don't believe anybody suggested deciding the election on the future of internet radio.

As for fish, one man's sashimi is another man's chum.

[Rick and Roll]

Originally Posted by Yesspaz

I don't mean to offend, and I'm all for small webcasters, but how should internet radio rights EVER be a deciding factor on voting for president? I love AM, but there are bigger fish to fry.

My opinion....

I wholeheartedly agree. That's why I am amused when the complaints come in about form letters back. I would be more concerned if a personal letter came back. That would show me a lack of attention to really important thngs.

Congressional hearings for athletes and HGH, now THAT's important.

[VAXman(Admin)]

Originally Posted by Rick and Roll

Congressional hearings for athletes and HGH, now THAT's important.

I wish somebody would explain this nonsense to me! There are laws in effect for the sale of, purchase of, and use of narcotics and other scheduled drugs; the latter which governs the illicit use of anabolic steroids. Why is CONGRESS holding hearings because some well-known athlete is alleged to have used them? Shouldn't CONGRESS be attending to the real pressing issues concerning the country?

I once heard a comedian say that the opposite of CONGRESS was PROGRESS. How true!

[podakayne]

very interesting ...but that's entertainment

nice effort lotus

[Roger -Dot- Lee(Admin)]

Originally Posted by VAXman

I wish somebody would explain this nonsense to me! There are laws in effect for the sale of, purchase of, and use of narcotics and other scheduled drugs; the latter which governs the illicit use of anabolic steroids. Why is CONGRESS holding hearings because some well-known athlete is alleged to have used them? Shouldn't CONGRESS be attending to the real pressing issues concerning the country?

SSSSSHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!

KY on a carpet dyk, Vax! You know FULL WELL that if they're not distracted by something petty and trivial like this, they'll spend their attention on trying out ways of making our lives more miserable/expensive/difficult/inconvenient than it already IS! You WANT them to figure out new and exciting ways of restricting our freedoms and taxing us for the pleasure?

YOU of ALL people should know this, Vax.

Originally Posted by Vaxman

I once heard a comedian say that the opposite of CONGRESS was PROGRESS. How true!

Boy, ain't it though?

Roger -Dot Lee, Rock over London, Rock out Chicago, you're in good hands with Allstate.

[VAXman(Admin)]

Originally Posted by Roger -Dot- Lee

SSSSSHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!

KY on a carpet dyk, Vax! You know FULL WELL that if they're not distracted by something petty and trivial like this, they'll spend their attention on trying out ways of making our lives more miserable/expensive/difficult/inconvenient than it already IS! You WANT them to figure out new and exciting ways of restricting our freedoms and taxing us for the pleasure?

YOU of ALL people should know this, Vax.

I know this! However, whilst I am overjoyed that they are not trying to devise ways to finance their guilty pleasures at the expense of my overtaxed arse and or trying to embolden their Schutzstaffel Waffel collectively referred to as lawyers to erode the law of the land, I'd still like to know WHY they have their attentions and ours focused on this issue AT ALL.