Monday, June 25, 2007
Canadian TV is crap....
...or so we constantly hear (at least I do when talking to the "regular folk"). But my rebuttal is two-fold:
1. How do we even know what the quality of Canadian programming is, when there is precious little of it being purchased by private broadcasters, and...
2. American programming is considered good?!
1. How do we even know what the quality of Canadian programming is, when there is precious little of it being purchased by private broadcasters, and...
2. American programming is considered good?!
Sunday, June 10, 2007
Cable cabal
Kevin Baker, Weekend Post
A note on my cable bill says the rate will be "adjusted" next month. The last increase, 8%, came not even a year ago. Now another 11%? Canadians' dollars are hard-earned, our leaders always tell us. We deserve accountability. I take up the phone.
"This makes 19% in under a year, yet I can't find where it says what new services I'm getting in return. Can you tell me what they are?"
Several months before, when I called about the last rate increase, the agent said, "There are so many reasons I could give you." I said let's hear them. He went away to ask someone, then came back to say he'd have to go ask someone else. Did I want to wait? Eventually, he told me MTV Canada had been added to my lineup. "Is that all?" I said. "There are so many reasons I could give you," he said, returning to the top of his script.
Later I found out MTV Canada had taken over TalkTV's licence. There was no additional service, just one unwatchable channel in place of another. I had fallen for a switcheroo scam. If they try pulling that again, I am ready. This time, I will get some accountability.
In January, my cable company's CEO, Jim Shaw, explained why he was stopping contributions to the Canadian Television Fund, saying he was waiting for a "statement of accountability." He wanted to know what shows the CTF paid for, how many people watched them, what revenues they earned. He singled out one CTF-supported show as an emblem of the fund's failure, Trailer Park Boys, "with all those guys running around half-naked, swearing and smoking weed." Besides those crimes, the Boys are satellite-and cable-TV thieves who siphon signals from fee-paying subscribers. The rascals are folk heroes, while cable-TV bosses are folk villains. Jim Shaw makes out like a bandit (his compensation package was nearly $6-million in 2006), yet receives none of the Boys' outlaw glory. The injustice would rankle anyone. So I know Shaw's people will understand the importance of accountability and give me the answers I seek. Here's what the agent tells me this time: "Because we're growing so fast, it costs more to get the service out to you guys."
This paragraph is a few calming thoughts so my head doesn't explode: tranquil lake, Boston Legal, fragrant forest, The Office, resplendent alpine meadow, Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip. There.
It sounds like there's a flaw in your business plan, I tell the agent. Maybe if you stopped growing, you could keep costs down and pass the savings on to customers. Oh, we're committed to growth, she says happily. Which amounts to telling me I can expect another increase any time.
In Alberta's growing cities, no doubt it costs more to hook up new houses in remote subdivisions than new condos downtown. First, there's the gas to drive out there. But my little old house is already hooked up. The service already gets out to me. Why should I pay higher cable-TV fees to subsidize urban sprawl? And why is robber-baron capitalism fine for a cable boss, but "you guys" are supposed to hold hands and cheerfully embrace kindergarten-variety socialism? I am livid.
An ingeniously twisted circle, then: TV is balm for a psyche bruised by everyday life. Excessive cable-fee increases further pummel the psyche; TV-providers' excuses ravage the psyche even more. TV's soothing relief then becomes that much more precious, worth every extra cent.
© National Post 2007
A note on my cable bill says the rate will be "adjusted" next month. The last increase, 8%, came not even a year ago. Now another 11%? Canadians' dollars are hard-earned, our leaders always tell us. We deserve accountability. I take up the phone.
"This makes 19% in under a year, yet I can't find where it says what new services I'm getting in return. Can you tell me what they are?"
Several months before, when I called about the last rate increase, the agent said, "There are so many reasons I could give you." I said let's hear them. He went away to ask someone, then came back to say he'd have to go ask someone else. Did I want to wait? Eventually, he told me MTV Canada had been added to my lineup. "Is that all?" I said. "There are so many reasons I could give you," he said, returning to the top of his script.
Later I found out MTV Canada had taken over TalkTV's licence. There was no additional service, just one unwatchable channel in place of another. I had fallen for a switcheroo scam. If they try pulling that again, I am ready. This time, I will get some accountability.
In January, my cable company's CEO, Jim Shaw, explained why he was stopping contributions to the Canadian Television Fund, saying he was waiting for a "statement of accountability." He wanted to know what shows the CTF paid for, how many people watched them, what revenues they earned. He singled out one CTF-supported show as an emblem of the fund's failure, Trailer Park Boys, "with all those guys running around half-naked, swearing and smoking weed." Besides those crimes, the Boys are satellite-and cable-TV thieves who siphon signals from fee-paying subscribers. The rascals are folk heroes, while cable-TV bosses are folk villains. Jim Shaw makes out like a bandit (his compensation package was nearly $6-million in 2006), yet receives none of the Boys' outlaw glory. The injustice would rankle anyone. So I know Shaw's people will understand the importance of accountability and give me the answers I seek. Here's what the agent tells me this time: "Because we're growing so fast, it costs more to get the service out to you guys."
This paragraph is a few calming thoughts so my head doesn't explode: tranquil lake, Boston Legal, fragrant forest, The Office, resplendent alpine meadow, Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip. There.
It sounds like there's a flaw in your business plan, I tell the agent. Maybe if you stopped growing, you could keep costs down and pass the savings on to customers. Oh, we're committed to growth, she says happily. Which amounts to telling me I can expect another increase any time.
In Alberta's growing cities, no doubt it costs more to hook up new houses in remote subdivisions than new condos downtown. First, there's the gas to drive out there. But my little old house is already hooked up. The service already gets out to me. Why should I pay higher cable-TV fees to subsidize urban sprawl? And why is robber-baron capitalism fine for a cable boss, but "you guys" are supposed to hold hands and cheerfully embrace kindergarten-variety socialism? I am livid.
An ingeniously twisted circle, then: TV is balm for a psyche bruised by everyday life. Excessive cable-fee increases further pummel the psyche; TV-providers' excuses ravage the psyche even more. TV's soothing relief then becomes that much more precious, worth every extra cent.
© National Post 2007
Thursday, June 7, 2007
Online repression rising: Amnesty International
CBC News
The internet is increasingly being used to repress free expression worldwide and technology companies are complicit, speakers at an Amnesty International webcast discussion of online censorship said Wednesday.
The discussion — marking the one-year anniversary of Amnesty's Irrepressible campaign — featured internet experts and free speech activists from around the world who described a growing phenomenon of censorship and repression being enabled by the internet even as people use the medium to gain a voice.
"Governments still fear dissenting opinion and the new technology, as well as helping out freedom, is giving new tools to those who want to curtail that freedom," Kamal Ahmed, executive editor of the Observer newspaper said in his opening remarks.
Pointing to companies like Google Inc., Microsoft Corp. and Yahoo Inc., which have been accused by human rights groups of helping governments censor free speech and repress their citizens, Ahmed noted that raising awareness of the issues confronting internet users and the companies involved in them is crucial to ensure that access remains free to all.
"It must be one of the most important issues of the century," Ahmed said.
University of Toronto professor Ron Deibert joined the discussion online, pointing out that the amount of content filtering has sharply increased since he began monitoring and tracking such efforts four years ago.
"The picture is rather troublesome," Deibert, director of technology and democracy project CitizenLab, told those present and watching online. "The scope, scale and sophistication of internet surveillance and content filtering is growing worldwide."
Deibert said that when he and the OpenNet Initiative began tracking countries engaged in content filtering, they found such evidence in only four nations out of 41 they looked at. Four years on, that number has risen to 25, pointing to an alarming trend.
Another trend is the increasing amount of content that is being censored. Now they're blocking a much wider swath, Deibert said.
The list has grown to include human rights information, independent news sites, blogs and blogging service sites, and online information in local languages — anything that could be used to help people assert their rights or become more informed about the world around them, he said.
Enabling this effort is technology — commercial software and hardware — much of it made in the U.S., Deibert said.
Companies like Secure Computing Corp., Fortinet Inc. and Websense Inc. are among those whose software is used by repressive regimes, he said. The countries are now using a technique called just-in-time filtering, he added.
"[Countries] leave the internet open most of the time except around special events like elections, then they slowly turn the tap off," Deibert said, adding that by using this approach, the governments maintain plausible deniability that they are behind any censorship but still achieve their goals.
"In light of what has gone on in Estonia, the prospect of an arms race in cyberspace is very real and has to be taken into account," Deibert said, expressing concern about official U.S., Russian and Chinese internet doctrines. "We can no longer take the internet for granted as a tool that helps human rights…. [It] is being carved up, colonized and militarized."
In May, Estonia's internet infrastructure was crippled by a massive attack that coincided with a sharp decline in the Baltic state's relations with Russia, which was threatening sanctions over a decision to move a Soviet-era war memorial. Moscow denied responsibility for the attacks, although they appeared to originate in Russia.
Companies that aid and abet activity that helps repress free expression must be called to account for their actions, said Morton Sklar of the World Organization for Human Rights.
"U.S.-based corporations are playing a major role in the latest iteration of how … rights are being repressed," the executive director of the Washington, D.C., rights organization told the audience after joining the discussion online. "They must be held accountable."
Alleging Yahoo, Google and internet hardware maker Cisco Systems Inc. are just a few linchpins of online repression, he called on them to correct their ways, but added the only way that was likely to happen would be if they were forced to.
'When it reaches a point when a corporation is contributing to torture, contributing to arbitrary detention, they have to ask if this is something they should do.'—Morton Sklar, World Organization for Human Rights
"When it reaches a point when a corporation is contributing to torture, contributing to arbitrary detention, they have to ask if this is something they should do," Sklar said.
He focused on the case of Wang Xiaoning, who criticized the Chinese government online and is now serving a 10-year prison sentence.
The group is suing Yahoo, alleging Chinese bloggers, journalists and human rights advocates have been detained, imprisoned and tortured on the basis of information that Yahoo gave authorities there.
"People need to be more aware of these cases that the internet is being used in this way to create torture and repression," Sklar said, noting that a resolution is on the agenda at Yahoo's June 12 shareholders' meeting would require Yahoo to form a human rights committee to examine how it should handle some cases.
Concerns about censorship and repression should not be reserved only for countries with poor human rights records, according to participants in the Amnesty webcast.
"This is something people in the West should be worried about as well," BBC technology correspondent Clark Boyd told the audience before introducing an American video-blogger.
Josh Wolf served more than 220 days in a federal prison after he refused to turn over to authorities tapes of an anti-G8 protest he recorded in 2005, citing journalistic privilege.
"I go out to gather information and disseminate it to the public," Wolf said. "That's a journalist."
His prison time has earned him the distinction of experiencing the longest imprisonment of any journalist in the United States for refusing to surrender his work to authorities, and has sharply highlighted the need for a federal shield law for the media.
"As we take steps to protect … the professional press, we have to think about bloggers as well," Wolf said
The internet is increasingly being used to repress free expression worldwide and technology companies are complicit, speakers at an Amnesty International webcast discussion of online censorship said Wednesday.
The discussion — marking the one-year anniversary of Amnesty's Irrepressible campaign — featured internet experts and free speech activists from around the world who described a growing phenomenon of censorship and repression being enabled by the internet even as people use the medium to gain a voice.
"Governments still fear dissenting opinion and the new technology, as well as helping out freedom, is giving new tools to those who want to curtail that freedom," Kamal Ahmed, executive editor of the Observer newspaper said in his opening remarks.
Pointing to companies like Google Inc., Microsoft Corp. and Yahoo Inc., which have been accused by human rights groups of helping governments censor free speech and repress their citizens, Ahmed noted that raising awareness of the issues confronting internet users and the companies involved in them is crucial to ensure that access remains free to all.
"It must be one of the most important issues of the century," Ahmed said.
University of Toronto professor Ron Deibert joined the discussion online, pointing out that the amount of content filtering has sharply increased since he began monitoring and tracking such efforts four years ago.
"The picture is rather troublesome," Deibert, director of technology and democracy project CitizenLab, told those present and watching online. "The scope, scale and sophistication of internet surveillance and content filtering is growing worldwide."
Deibert said that when he and the OpenNet Initiative began tracking countries engaged in content filtering, they found such evidence in only four nations out of 41 they looked at. Four years on, that number has risen to 25, pointing to an alarming trend.
Another trend is the increasing amount of content that is being censored. Now they're blocking a much wider swath, Deibert said.
The list has grown to include human rights information, independent news sites, blogs and blogging service sites, and online information in local languages — anything that could be used to help people assert their rights or become more informed about the world around them, he said.
Enabling this effort is technology — commercial software and hardware — much of it made in the U.S., Deibert said.
Companies like Secure Computing Corp., Fortinet Inc. and Websense Inc. are among those whose software is used by repressive regimes, he said. The countries are now using a technique called just-in-time filtering, he added.
"[Countries] leave the internet open most of the time except around special events like elections, then they slowly turn the tap off," Deibert said, adding that by using this approach, the governments maintain plausible deniability that they are behind any censorship but still achieve their goals.
"In light of what has gone on in Estonia, the prospect of an arms race in cyberspace is very real and has to be taken into account," Deibert said, expressing concern about official U.S., Russian and Chinese internet doctrines. "We can no longer take the internet for granted as a tool that helps human rights…. [It] is being carved up, colonized and militarized."
In May, Estonia's internet infrastructure was crippled by a massive attack that coincided with a sharp decline in the Baltic state's relations with Russia, which was threatening sanctions over a decision to move a Soviet-era war memorial. Moscow denied responsibility for the attacks, although they appeared to originate in Russia.
Companies that aid and abet activity that helps repress free expression must be called to account for their actions, said Morton Sklar of the World Organization for Human Rights.
"U.S.-based corporations are playing a major role in the latest iteration of how … rights are being repressed," the executive director of the Washington, D.C., rights organization told the audience after joining the discussion online. "They must be held accountable."
Alleging Yahoo, Google and internet hardware maker Cisco Systems Inc. are just a few linchpins of online repression, he called on them to correct their ways, but added the only way that was likely to happen would be if they were forced to.
'When it reaches a point when a corporation is contributing to torture, contributing to arbitrary detention, they have to ask if this is something they should do.'—Morton Sklar, World Organization for Human Rights
"When it reaches a point when a corporation is contributing to torture, contributing to arbitrary detention, they have to ask if this is something they should do," Sklar said.
He focused on the case of Wang Xiaoning, who criticized the Chinese government online and is now serving a 10-year prison sentence.
The group is suing Yahoo, alleging Chinese bloggers, journalists and human rights advocates have been detained, imprisoned and tortured on the basis of information that Yahoo gave authorities there.
"People need to be more aware of these cases that the internet is being used in this way to create torture and repression," Sklar said, noting that a resolution is on the agenda at Yahoo's June 12 shareholders' meeting would require Yahoo to form a human rights committee to examine how it should handle some cases.
Concerns about censorship and repression should not be reserved only for countries with poor human rights records, according to participants in the Amnesty webcast.
"This is something people in the West should be worried about as well," BBC technology correspondent Clark Boyd told the audience before introducing an American video-blogger.
Josh Wolf served more than 220 days in a federal prison after he refused to turn over to authorities tapes of an anti-G8 protest he recorded in 2005, citing journalistic privilege.
"I go out to gather information and disseminate it to the public," Wolf said. "That's a journalist."
His prison time has earned him the distinction of experiencing the longest imprisonment of any journalist in the United States for refusing to surrender his work to authorities, and has sharply highlighted the need for a federal shield law for the media.
"As we take steps to protect … the professional press, we have to think about bloggers as well," Wolf said
Friday, May 18, 2007
CRTC approves more TV ads
New policies on digital transition, closed-captioning also released
CBC Arts
Canadian viewers won't see a hike in their cable and satellite TV bills because of a new subscription fee broadcasters proposed last fall, but they will likely start seeing more commercials soon, under changes the CRTC announced Thursday.
The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission revealed its decisions regarding several contentious issues discussed during hearings last November that scrutinized the state of Canada's TV landscape.
The federal regulator has denied the proposal from conventional broadcasters — including CanWest and the CBC — to introduce a subscription fee to cable and satellite companies who carry their signals, currently available free over the airwaves.
Supporters had argued that the so-called "carriage fee" was a necessary measure because traditional broadcasters are facing an increasingly difficult climate where audiences are fragmented and advertising growth is slow.
However, the cable and satellite companies called the proposal a new "tax" that would force a hike to the consumer, which could then cause viewers to drop their service and seek out other TV alternatives, like grey-market satellites from the U.S.
Gradual reduction of advertising restrictions
While the CRTC did not feel the subscriber fee "to be warranted at this time," it recognized the financial difficulties faced by conventional broadcasters and decided to remove restrictions on how much advertising they can air as an alternate way to increase revenues.
Continue Article
Currently, broadcasters can show up to 12 minutes of advertising per hour, including segments promoting programs in their lineups.
As of Sept. 1, this will increase to a maximum of 14 minutes of advertising in prime time — between 7 p.m. and 11 p.m.
A year later, the limit will increase to 15 minutes across all time periods. As of September 2008, all advertising time restrictions will be lifted. The CRTC will review the impact of these increased ad times.
"The Commission considers it essential that [over-the-air] broadcasters have the flexibility to maximize advertising revenues to respond to the negative impact of audience fragmentation," according to a statement from the regulator issued Tuesday.
Analog-to-digital deadline
The CRTC also set Aug. 31, 2011, as a deadline for Canada's switch from analog to digital and High-Definition broadcasting signals. An exception will be made for northern and remote regions that lack digital transmitters.
Many other countries around the world have already set their target dates for the switch.
In December, the Netherlands became the first country to switch completely to broadcasting digital signals for television. Other European countries are set to switch this year, while the U.S. is scheduled to end analog TV transmission in 2009.
Japan and the U.K. plan to complete their own move to digital by 2011 and 2012, respectively.
A deadline was necessary, the regulator said, to avoid a situation where Canadian viewers "turn to foreign programming to take advantage of this new technology because there is not enough Canadian digital programming available."
The commission also said that it is confident that the next few years will provide ample time for broadcasters to make the necessary technological transition, as well as give creators enough to time to produce Canadian programming in HD.
Tuesday's announcement also included a new closed captioning policy — English- and French-language broadcasters will have to caption 100 per cent of their programs between 6 a.m. and midnight.
CRTC defers look at Cancon
The commission praised French-language broadcasters for devoting a "consistently high" level of their programming budgets — about 90 per cent — to Canadian content.
The corresponding situation in English Canada was "cause for concern" because the proportion English-language broadcasters spent has decreased to approximately 40 per cent, the regulator said.
However, the CRTC deferred its examination of specific spending by broadcasters on Canadian programming until the licence renewal hearings scheduled for spring 2008.
For years, various groups have criticized the CRTC's 1999 decision to remove the rule forcing private conventional television broadcasters to spend a minimum amount on Canadian dramatic programming. They charge that the result has been a sharp drop in Canadian-made TV shows.
The Directors Guild of Canada; the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada; the Writers Guild of Canada; and the Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists (ACTRA) are among the groups that issued statements Thursday criticizing the CRTC for failing to issue clear directives on what broadcasters should spend on Canadian-made programming.
The CBC said it was "disappointed" with the decision and, in a statement, called it "a great day for broadcasters airing U.S. programming.
"By increasing the number of advertising minutes in American programming aired by Canadian private conventional broadcasters, both English and French, the CRTC has effectively increased the value of this programming, and removed the incentive for private broadcasters to create more Canadian drama," the public broadcaster said.
CBC Arts
Canadian viewers won't see a hike in their cable and satellite TV bills because of a new subscription fee broadcasters proposed last fall, but they will likely start seeing more commercials soon, under changes the CRTC announced Thursday.
The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission revealed its decisions regarding several contentious issues discussed during hearings last November that scrutinized the state of Canada's TV landscape.
The federal regulator has denied the proposal from conventional broadcasters — including CanWest and the CBC — to introduce a subscription fee to cable and satellite companies who carry their signals, currently available free over the airwaves.
Supporters had argued that the so-called "carriage fee" was a necessary measure because traditional broadcasters are facing an increasingly difficult climate where audiences are fragmented and advertising growth is slow.
However, the cable and satellite companies called the proposal a new "tax" that would force a hike to the consumer, which could then cause viewers to drop their service and seek out other TV alternatives, like grey-market satellites from the U.S.
Gradual reduction of advertising restrictions
While the CRTC did not feel the subscriber fee "to be warranted at this time," it recognized the financial difficulties faced by conventional broadcasters and decided to remove restrictions on how much advertising they can air as an alternate way to increase revenues.
Continue Article
Currently, broadcasters can show up to 12 minutes of advertising per hour, including segments promoting programs in their lineups.
As of Sept. 1, this will increase to a maximum of 14 minutes of advertising in prime time — between 7 p.m. and 11 p.m.
A year later, the limit will increase to 15 minutes across all time periods. As of September 2008, all advertising time restrictions will be lifted. The CRTC will review the impact of these increased ad times.
"The Commission considers it essential that [over-the-air] broadcasters have the flexibility to maximize advertising revenues to respond to the negative impact of audience fragmentation," according to a statement from the regulator issued Tuesday.
Analog-to-digital deadline
The CRTC also set Aug. 31, 2011, as a deadline for Canada's switch from analog to digital and High-Definition broadcasting signals. An exception will be made for northern and remote regions that lack digital transmitters.
Many other countries around the world have already set their target dates for the switch.
In December, the Netherlands became the first country to switch completely to broadcasting digital signals for television. Other European countries are set to switch this year, while the U.S. is scheduled to end analog TV transmission in 2009.
Japan and the U.K. plan to complete their own move to digital by 2011 and 2012, respectively.
A deadline was necessary, the regulator said, to avoid a situation where Canadian viewers "turn to foreign programming to take advantage of this new technology because there is not enough Canadian digital programming available."
The commission also said that it is confident that the next few years will provide ample time for broadcasters to make the necessary technological transition, as well as give creators enough to time to produce Canadian programming in HD.
Tuesday's announcement also included a new closed captioning policy — English- and French-language broadcasters will have to caption 100 per cent of their programs between 6 a.m. and midnight.
CRTC defers look at Cancon
The commission praised French-language broadcasters for devoting a "consistently high" level of their programming budgets — about 90 per cent — to Canadian content.
The corresponding situation in English Canada was "cause for concern" because the proportion English-language broadcasters spent has decreased to approximately 40 per cent, the regulator said.
However, the CRTC deferred its examination of specific spending by broadcasters on Canadian programming until the licence renewal hearings scheduled for spring 2008.
For years, various groups have criticized the CRTC's 1999 decision to remove the rule forcing private conventional television broadcasters to spend a minimum amount on Canadian dramatic programming. They charge that the result has been a sharp drop in Canadian-made TV shows.
The Directors Guild of Canada; the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada; the Writers Guild of Canada; and the Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists (ACTRA) are among the groups that issued statements Thursday criticizing the CRTC for failing to issue clear directives on what broadcasters should spend on Canadian-made programming.
The CBC said it was "disappointed" with the decision and, in a statement, called it "a great day for broadcasters airing U.S. programming.
"By increasing the number of advertising minutes in American programming aired by Canadian private conventional broadcasters, both English and French, the CRTC has effectively increased the value of this programming, and removed the incentive for private broadcasters to create more Canadian drama," the public broadcaster said.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Internet radio broadcasters dealt setback
LAS VEGAS, Nevada (AP) -- Internet radio broadcasters were dealt a setback Monday when a panel of copyright judges threw out requests to reconsider a ruling that hiked the royalties they must pay to record companies and artists.
A broad group of public and private broadcasters, including radio stations, small startup companies, National Public Radio and major online sites like Yahoo Inc. and Time Warner Inc.'s AOL, had objected to the new royalties set March 2, saying they would force a drastic cutback in services that are now enjoyed by some 50 million people. (Time Warner is also the parent company of CNN.)
In the latest ruling, the Copyright Royalty Board judges denied all motions for rehearing and also declined to postpone a May 15 deadline by which the new royalties will have to be collected.
However, they did grant leniency on one point, allowing the webcasters to calculate fees by average listening hours, as they had been, as opposed to the new system of charging a royalty each time every song is heard by an online listener. That exemption counts for last year and this year. After that, the new per-song, per-listener fee structure goes into effect.
Many webcasters say the sharply higher royalty fees will put them out of business. Talk of the ruling dominated a one-day meeting of Internet radio broadcasters being held in Las Vegas alongside the annual conference of the National Association of Broadcasters, a group representing local radio and TV stations.
N. Mark Lam, the CEO of Live365 Inc., a privately held company that aggregates audio streams from thousands of radio stations and other small webcasters, said that under the new royalty rules, "there is no industry."
Lam, who joined the venture capital-backed company about two years ago, said Live365 just barely broke even last year and had about 4.5 million unique listeners every month.
Also on Monday, several Internet radio broadcasters announced a campaign to raise awareness of the issue and encourage listeners to write to their representatives in Congress.
Small broadcasters have received relief from Congress in the past, benefiting from a law passed five years ago that gave them a break on royalty rates. The legislation allowed them to pay about 12 percent of their revenues instead of having to calculate per-song, per-hour rates like larger companies had to.
David Oxenford, a lawyer representing several webcasters, said the next step was likely an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, but he noted that process could take at least a year. Meanwhile, he said, the prospects of successfully getting a court to block the decision of the royalty board judges is slim.
SoundExchange, a nonprofit group that collects the online royalties from webcasters and distributes them to record labels and artists, hailed the ruling in a statement and said it looked forward to working with Internet radio companies in order to ensure that the industry succeeds.
Jonathan Potter, the head of the Digital Media Association, which represents several large webcasters including Yahoo, AOL and Microsoft Corp.'s MSN network, said his group was not currently in talks with SoundExchange but may be soon. He said his group and other webcasters would be turning to Congress, where he said he sees "a lot of legislative support."
The royalties in question only cover digital transmissions of music, and don't apply to terrestrial radio stations, as traditional radio play is seen as a benefit for record labels by promoting sales of recorded music. Both digital broadcasters and regular radio stations pay a separate royalty to the publishers and composers of music.
Saturday, April 14, 2007
ACTRA ratifies, Toronto gets a new studio and everything is back to normal...
Or is it?
What is the "status quo" these days anyway?
ACTRA members ratified the new IPA (this isn't really breaking news as it was expected when the strike was ended). Toronto may get a new studio for all those big blockbusters that are just itching to shoot here (although, the rumours of Toronto getting a huge "boost" to its production capabilities are getting as stale as they are old.)
At least actors can't be blamed for sagging production levels anymore.
Viva la revolucion!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
