It’s responsible for producing statistics, ‘certifying’ attaboy awards for contracted performers who’ve made lots of money for the labels, arranging soirées so politicians can mix with, and be influenced by, vested interests. And so on.

RIAA is short for Recording Industry Association of America. But to all reasonable intents and purposes, it’s the official US mouthpiece and pseudo-police enforcement unit for three foreign companies, and one ostensibly American firm owned by investors headed up by a Canadian.

They are, in order of size »»»

1. Vivendi Universal (France)
2. Sony (Japan)
3. EMI (Britain)
4. Warner Music (US)

“RIAA members create, manufacture and/or distribute approximately 85% of all legitimate sound recordings produced and sold in the United States,” it boasts.

This may have been so when it was written back in the dark ages of the corporate recording business, but in the digital 21st century, it’s no longer true, or anywhere near it. And every day, the Big 4 haemorrhage more and more ‘consumers’ of corporate ‘product’.

Now, “Because the federal government apparently hasn’t helped the RIAA enough in the past century — despite repeatedly changing copyright laws to favor the industry again and again and again (and again) — the Senate Judiciary Committee has approved the Performance Rights Act, which effectively serves to tax radio stations for promoting music,” says Mike Masnick on TechDirt, going on »»»

It’s quite obvious to anyone who actually understands radio economics that this makes no sense. After all, the history of radio has always been about payola — having the labels pay the radio stations to play certain works. That’s because the record labels know quite well that airtime leads to more money in terms of promoting an artist and building a business model around music, concert and merchandise sales. To the labels, airplay has always been the equivalent of advertising. That’s why they pay for it.

But now they want the radio stations to pay them to advertise the labels’ music? Isn’t that getting the equation backwards?

This is nothing more than a federal bailout of the RIAA, who still refuses to embrace new business models. Instead, they have to squeeze others and get the government to force them to hand over money. A real business model doesn’t involve changing the law. It involves giving others a reason to buy. Apparently, that’s too difficult for the RIAA.

As for the claims that a performance license will somehow help musicians, that’s bogus as well. First, ask the RIAA’s SoundExchange about all the money it keeps for itself and about all the musicians it “can’t find.” Besides, all this will do is harm up-and-coming musicians. Because radio stations will now need to pay more for playing music, they’ll play less music, and if they’re playing less music, they’ll focus just on the big name acts.

“Smaller up-and-coming artists should be furious with the RIAA for giving radio stations less incentive to play their works,” says Masnick, adding:

“Remember, this is the opposite of payola. While payola got new records on the air, this will make sure fewer get on the air. But it will sure put a bunch more money in the pockets of the major record labels …”

1% For, 99% Against

Vote on this Bill

—- and stay tuned.

63 Comments | Leave a Comment.. Follow p2pnet on Twitter.

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi

TechDirt – Senate Judiciary Committee Approves RIAA Bailout Radio Tax, October 16, 2009

Yup, because the RIAA and its members haven’t been able to come up with a business model that works, they get the courts to tax you for listening to your satellite radio (on top of what you already pay and what they already pay to songwriters and publishers) and that gets passed on to you.

Just imagine what will happen if the RIAA gets its wish and gets to add a similar tax to terrestrial radio stations as well.

Adds the post, “If you thought radio was chock full of commercials before …”

No kidding.

Follow p2pnet on Twitter.

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi

TechDirt – Sirius XM Passes RIAA Tax On To Consumers, August 19, 2009

There were numerous problems with this claim. First, we thought it was rather hypocritical of MusicFirst to demand that radio stations play these artists, when it was the very same MusicFirst that was also claiming that radio was “a kind of piracy” for playing the music of these very same artists without paying a performance tax.

So, apparently if a radio station does play these artists, it’s piracy. If it doesn’t play these artists, it requires an FCC investigation.

Beyond that, MusicFirst failed to note that many of the artists topping the charts (including the Black Eyed Peas, who topped the charts at the time) were some of the most outspoken artists in favor of this tax. If there was some big conspiracy to not play these artists on the radio, someone forgot to tell… well… pretty much every radio station around.

That highlighted the third problem: MusicFirst didn’t happen to point to any radio station that actually did this. The only one that could be dug up was a small high school radio station that had publicly boycotted artists supporting such a tax (which would have shut down the radio station), but only did so for one month and that month happened two years ago, and was a clearly supported expression of free speech.

And that brings up the final point. The recording industry has no right to demand that radio stations play certain artists. A radio station is free to play whatever artists they wish and run whatever commercial they wish. This is a pure free speech issue, and it’s quite troubling that the recording industry is targeting radio stations when they have no right over this.

Based on this, you’d, “hope that the FCC would simply laugh off the petition,” says Masnic, adding, “but tragically, it’s opened up a consultation on the matter and is asking for public input (found via Michael Scott).

“The article linked here goes through all of the First Amendment questions raised by this, and notes (thankfully) that the FCC seems to recognize those issues as well. But, if that’s the case, why even bother holding this investigation in the first place?”

Follow p2pnet on Twitter.

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi

TechDirt – Why Is The FCC Even Giving The Time Of Day To RIAA’s Bogus Radio Witchhunt?, August 11, 2009

“The bell is tolling for Webcasting in the U.S. after the Copyright Review Board refused to alter the new proposed royalty rates, which represent an enormous hike in the money online radio stations must pay. The new rates take effect July 16, and a coalition of Webcasters led by the popular Pandora are pleading that their business will go away with these new payment obligations.

“Many times, these outcries are public-relations strategies that exaggerate the impact to garner sympathy and, subsequently, lower rates. In this case, it’s not hyperbole. Net radio companies will go bankrupt if they continue to broadcast under these new rates, so expect many to go silent …”

Now, Michael writes in his blog, “Recently a new set of rates were announced which press reports said “averted the royalty crisis,” going on »»»

It’s true the new rates are lower, but they are nowhere close to allowing a viable web radio business. Here’s a closer look at what the press reported and what is true/false:

• Webcasters can pay 25% of their revenues.
  
• Answer: FALSE

While a surprising number of news outlets (The Register, Associated Press and countless blogs) declared this as an option for larger webcasters, it’s not accurate. Webcasters are required to pay 25% of revenues or a per song fee WHICHEVER IS HIGHER. Because these royalties apply only to pure play webcasters (meaning they play music all the time), there is no reasonable scenario in which the per song royalty will be lower than 25% of revenues, rendering the revenue share component moot. This means webcasters will always end up paying higher than 25% of their total revenues.

The record labels learned this effective press misdirection ploy when they announced a “revenue share” deal with Imeem. To make the deal appear equitable a revenue share option is emphasized, but due to the deal structure it will never come into play.

• The new webcasting rates are lower.
  
• Answer: TRUE

The new rates have lower growth (see chart below), however the old rates were so outlandishly high that even with the discount, webcasters are doomed. Most problematic in the old rates is the per song fee which requires webcasters to pay for each and every song regardless of whether it is generating any revenue for the company. The Pandora CEO calls per song fees an “anvil“. The new rates do not remove the per song fee, neither do they change the starting point.

The only change in the new rates is that the growth is 5-10% per year instead 25-50% which is a small consolation.

• Web radio companies can now compete with other radio services.
  
• Answer: FALSE

Traditional radio pays nothing to record labels while satellite pays 6.5% of total revenues. Online radio is required to pay a per song fee, which depending on how well the web shop can sell advertising, will be 40-100% (or more) of their revenues. When a competitor has such an enormous cost advantage, it is impossible to compete. As an example, Pandora estimates they will do 1 billion hours of streaming in 2009 which requires $17 million in royalties. They estimate they will do $40 million in revenue which equates a payment to the major labels of 42.5% of their total revenues. No business can operate with such an enormous financial obligation.

• This ends a 2.5 year battle over royalties.
  
• Answer: FALSE

Webcasters were facing an immediate execution so instead, they agreed to bleed a slow death. But to get these lower rates webcasters have to agree to not oppose the old rate structure in legal proceedings. They’ll have to immediately pay several years of back fees, which for Pandora will mean more than $10 million dollars. Pandora is hoping to raise a large amount of capital so they are publicly saying good things about this settlement like “This is the deal we have been waiting for.” Behind the scenes they know they do not have a business at these rates, but they are hoping to raise money to pay off the record labels and then continue on their fight in on congress to make royalties for all radio outlets the same and in the process dramatically lower webcasting rates. However this settlement will remove much of the momentum for rate changes lowering the prospect of congressional action.

• The record labels are now entering into fair deals with technology companies which allow them to grow.
  
• Answer: FALSE

“Supporting new business models through innovative licensing agreements is critical to the future of our industry,” said Steve Marks EVP of the RIAA. He says the settlement is proof that the music industry wants to partner with technology firms. A Sound Exchange executive said, “We’re willing to take the risk in the hope that artists, rights holders and webcasters can all benefit.” However, these new rates have guaranteed payments to the record labels even if a company is not generating revenue. There is no risk for the record labels with these rates. It is not a partnership when one party yields the lion share of the benefit. These new rates are typical of the lopsided deals record labels have done with net companies in the past 10 years.

This blunt assessment of the online radio business is in contrast to most press reports, but those have been influenced by the parties with reasons to slant their words. The record labels do not want congressional action and want the perception to be that they do fair deals. Webcasters like Pandora need to raise money to survive so they need certainty in their business to entice investors. Consequently both parties are motivated to publicly say nice quotes about these new rates.

The economics don’t lie. Experienced radio man Bob Bellin says, “No start up webcasting business can give up more than 25% of their revenue and make a profit.” Bill Goldsmith of Radio Paradise says that long term viability requires a payment of no more than 10-12% of total revenues for both publishers and record label royalties. The new rates, while lower, are nowhere close to being sustainable. While I’ve used Pandora as a reference point to illustrate the situation, the same could be written about Slacker, Last.FM, or any webcasting company. Net radio is going to die a slow death in the United States.

Interesting, and highly relevant, news coming soon. So stay tuned …

Follow p2pnet on Twitter.

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi

July, 2009

A radio performance royalty for recording artists and copyright holders also sounded like a good idea. Songwriters and music publishers had been getting those royalties for decades and it hadn’t slowed down the growth of radio in the US into a business generating billions of dollars of profit. Why not extend the idea to the copyright holders on the recordings, and, since nobody would really believe Edgar Bronfman needed the money, they brought the recording artists along as poster children for the campaign.

Getting a performance royalty on satellite and webcasting broadcasts is one of the very few things the dinosaurs of the record business have gotten right in the past 15 years, but they were virtually unopposed. The web and satellite broadcasters weren’t organized, and the record labels’ traditional enemies, the terrestrial broadcasters, were as afraid of the Internet as the labels were.

So the labels saw a chance to get their friends in Congress to grant them a performance royalty from the new platform, and they threw in satellite broadcasting because, well, because it was there.

The labels couldn’t lose. If the new media thrived, they’d make money. If it died, well, they’d opened the door to performance royalties on other platforms. A good idea, either way.

Almost as if self-destructive behavior was built into the industry’s DNA, the labels then proceeded to try to kill off the new revenue sources. And, try as they might, the labels just haven’t been able to kill webcasting. The royalty rates imposed by the CRB in 2007 are still hanging fire while “negotiations” between SoundExchange and webcasters seem to be going nowhere fast. Congress, with other matters on its mind, have pretty much left the parties to figure things out for themselves. All those glowing revenue projections that SoundExchange relied on in supporting the killer rates have drifted away balances in Bernie Madoff’s bankbook, but still the fight goes on.

But in the meantime, the labels, through their puppet front SoundExchange, has just about completed the job on satellite radio, which now appears to be the first DAT tape story of the 21st century; a really fine piece of technology that saw its time come and go as it was overtaken by progress before it even got started.

Just as the mp3 and burnable CDs made DAT tape recorders and players irrelevant, the rise of reliable webcasting capabilities spelled doom for its satellite-based cousin. Webcasting was cheaper, you didn’t need specialized equipment, and the programming choices were even greater. With the expansion of Wi-Fi access, the advantage of portability that satellite radio had has greatly diminished.

Like two drowning souls, Sirius and XM, each swimming tied to a giant anvil of debt, reached for each other in the hope that together they could achieve what they couldn’t do on their own; survive. Like most mergers born of desperation, things only got worse. Costs mounted, revenue didn’t keep pace, and the interest payments on that debt kept coming due. When they merged, Sirius XM promised the FCC that they wouldn’t raise rates, but they left a loophole that allowed them to adjust the subscription fees for “royalty costs.”

Starting next month, the satellite broadcaster will tack on an additional $1.98 per month as a “royalty fee.” That’s just about $24 a year. There are now about 18.5 million subscribers, according to a cNet report in may. Even if they lose 10% of their subscribers over the increase (which comes on the heels of a basic rate increase, a separate fee to stream the previously free broadcasts over the Internet AND a separate $3 a month iPhone app) the “royalty fee” will still generate $400 MILLION a year.

You know the labels are licking their chops at getting to carve up at least $200 million among themselves. And, given SoundExchange’s proven inability to find and pay artists, (they still haven’t paid out one-third of the webcaster money collected for 2006) even more of that money will end up in the label coffers before its all gone.

There is little question that the higher royalty rate passed for the CRB for satellite radio (6% of revenue rising to 8% by 2012) was going to spell financial trouble. Passing the bill (and apparently then some) on to the subscribers sounds like washing down a cyanide pill with a chaser of battery acid.

Subscribers are quitting over the increased fees, and perceived decreases in both quality and programming selection, not to mention the ads being played where there were no ads before. What had been a relative trickle (400,000 quitters in the months immediately after the merger) could turn into a stampede. It isn’t going to take much erosion to put Sirius XM back at the door of the bankruptcy courthouse.

And that will mean no money for the labels. And, of course, no money for the artists.

So, we have satellite radio, a good idea whose time has come, and most likely gone.

And we have performance royalties, a good idea until they are used as a blunt instrument to influence programming and exact maximum immediate payout without any consideration for the future.

Two good ideas don’t always combine into a really good idea.

Put these two good ideas together, and you have a promising medium that walks around not understanding that it is already dead, with self-inflicted wounds a great contributing factor.

Instead of one more platform to hear music, we have equipment we can put in the attic next to the DAT players. And instead of a source of what could have been reasonable royalty revenue for labels and artists, we have no revenue for labels and artists.

New game, same losers.

Fred Wilhelms – p2pnet

[If the corporate music industry had any ethics, Wilhelms would be its 'ethicist-in-chief,' wrote CounterPunch's Dave Marsh. Wilhelms is an entertainment attorney based in Nashville, Tennessee. You can contact him at fred.wilhelms @ gmail dot com. ]

Follow p2pnet on Twitter.

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi

June, 2009

“Earlier this week, musicFIRST, the big time lobbying group put together by the RIAA to push for the highly questionable Performance Rights tax on radio stations, did a neat little publicity stunt where it asked the FCC to investigate radio stations that apparently were “boycotting” musicians who supported the Performance Rights tax, claiming that it was an abuse of the airwaves,” he says, going on »»»

Remember, this is the same group that just recently called radio “a kind of piracy.”

So, wait, which is it?

If it’s a kind of piracy to play songs on the radio, shouldn’t musicFIRST and the RIAA be thrilled that radio stations aren’t playing their music? Or do they recognize the free promotional benefits radio provides for artists? They can’t have it both ways, can they?

First they’re upset that the music is being “pirated” and now they’re upset that it’s not being “pirated”?

Please explain!

Now, as for those nasty nasty radio stations “boycotting” certain artists, well who are they?

Turns out one of the main culprits is a tiny 100-watt high school radio station who has explained, in great detail the reasons behind their political stance. They are making a political choice by purposely boycotting musicians who support the view that playing their songs on the radio is “a kind of piracy.”

You would think that would make musicFIRST, the RIAA and those musicians happy. But, more to the point, that music “boycott” was a temporary thing, and lasted for one month, from mid-June 2007 until mid-July of that same year. Yes. It lasted for one month, to make a political statement, and it happened two years ago.

“And suddenly the RIAA/musicFIRST wants an FCC investigation?”" – ask Mike, adding:

“Of a bunch of high schoolers making a political statement against a tax that would harm their educational radio station by not “pirating” materials that the lobbyists claim are pirated?”

Follow p2pnet on Twitter.

TechDirt – Recording Industry: Radio Is Piracy, But Not Playing Our Music Is A Federal Offense, June 17, 2009

Because the Big 4 don’t merely want part of it. They want it all. And ongoing royalty disputes have brought the development of Net-based radio to a virtual halt.

However, new online company, Goom Radio, based in New York and aiming to utilise experience already gained in France has managed to raise $16 million.

But it could be the principle reason for its success isn’t that the Big 4 have finally come to their senses, realising it’s time to embrace the new digital realities of the 21st century, discarding their old, outmoded ways of doing business, or that Goom has developed a brand new way of doing business.

Rather, running our of the “historic” former Clear Channel Z100 studios in Jersey City, it’s staffed by hard-core corporate radio heavies and will operate as an advertising based streaming set-up.

Heading it is Rob Williams, ex-president and market manager for Clear Channel New York, and chief sales officer Drew Hilles, who led dMarc Broadcasting through an acquisition by Google.

Joe Anastasi, described as “account executive of the sales team,” worked for Google Audio before it abandoned its radio activities to concentrate on  streaming audio. Before that he worked for dMarc Broadcasting.

“With proven initial success in France, Goom Radio U.S. will be adapted to meet the varying needs of the U.S. market,” says the company.

Goom Radio France launched in the fall 2008, says the company.

Goom Radio – Goom Radio Raises More Than $16 Million in Venture Capital to Launch Internet Radio Service, April 14, 2009

Now, calling resulting user outrage “feedback,” the company says it won’t, after all, try to charge some, but only some, users for the privilege of listening.

Only for now, though.

“Last.fm Radio has always been ad supported, which means we sell ads on the site to cover the cost of running the service and paying the music licensing fees,” says Richard Jones in a blog post today, going on »»»

If you’ve spent more than 5 minutes on the site you’ll know that the Last.fm community is international to the extreme – we are made up of people from practically every country in the world. Last.fm is a better place for it.

However, we simply can’t be in every country where our radio service is available selling the ads we need to support the service. The Internet is global, and geographic restrictions seem unfair, but it’s a reality we are faced with every day when managing our music licensing partnerships.

We’re listening and we’ve postponed the date on which radio will become a subscription service outside the USA, UK and Germany. In the meantime we’ll be squeezing in some additional improvements based on your requests:

* Gift subscriptions: you’ll be able to buy a subscription for a friend

* Updating developers using our Radio API: third-party apps that stream Last.fm Radio will have full access to the Radio API, so streaming will work provided the user that logs in is a subscriber. (All other APIs remain free/unchanged)

* Investigating alternative payment options. If Paypal sucks in your country, or you don’t have a credit card, don’t despair. Based on feedback so far, we are looking at supporting pay-by-SMS, and possibly some other options. Can’t promise we’ll have support for everyone’s favourite payment system from day one, but we’ll do our best to make it easy for you.

As soon as Last.fm has, “completed the upgrades noted above, we’ll move ahead with the transition,”  promises Jones, adding:

“Thereafter, radio in the USA, UK and Germany will remain ad-supported, and radio in other countries where it’s not feasible to have an ad-supported service will be moving to a subscription service.”

pay to tune in – MP3.com artists – moved to Last.fm, March 27, 2009
blog – Radio Announcement Revisited, March 30, 2009

p2pnet news view

But if you live anywhere else, you won’t be happy.

And if you’re an MP3.com artist, you, too, will find things have changed

Because:

a) Last.fm is introducing a premium subscription model (that means you’ll have to pay to listen); and

b) at the end of the month, all MP3.com artists are being moved to Last.fm, like it or not.

Subscription of €3.00 per month

Said paidContent in January:

“The company has signed deals with all four major record labels and 150,000 independents to offer free streaming of full length music.

But “free” isn’t “free”. It’s ad-supported, and after a user has listened to one track three times, he or she will get “recommendations” for other music, said the story.

Now, for everyone outside of  the US, UK or Germany, “listening to Last.fm Radio will soon require a subscription of €3.00 per month,” blogs Richard Jones.

All MP3.com artist pages

Not only but also, “Greetings MP3.com users and artists,” says MP3.com with “important news to share”.

No kidding.

“On Tuesday, March 31, 2009, we will begin redirecting all MP3.com artist pages and category doors to corresponding pages on our sister site Last.fm,” it says, going on »»»

If you are an artist, please note: We will not be able to save or transfer any content from your MP3.com artist profile pages to Last.fm.

Therefore, we recommend that you sign up as a Last.fm artist and transfer any content from your MP3.com artist page to Last.fm prior to March 31.

In some cases, “your artist page may already exist, due to our Scrobbling technology,” says MP3.com. “Once you register as an artist or label, however, you can gain access to this page to modify or upload content.”

And are you an artists with lots of links in lots of places?

Then, “once your Last.fm profile is in place, we suggest that you also modify any URLs that you may have on other sites — personal blogs or Web sites, and artist or label pages — to point instead to your new profile page on Last.fm,” says MP3.com.

“The sooner you make these changes, the less confusion for your friends, colleagues, and fans.”

Really.

Back at Last.fm, “There will be a 30 track free trial, and we hope this will convince people to subscribe and keep listening to the radio,” says Jones.

“Everything else on Last.fm (scrobbling, recommendations, charts, biographies, events, videos etc.) will remain free in all countries, like it is now.”

Stay tuned.

(Thanks, catflap)

paidContent – Last.fm Announcement: Free On-Demand Music Platform, January 23, 2009

March, 2009

p2pnet news view | Radio:- The clip on the right is from Steve Russell’s  Toronto Star pic of late pianist Glenn Gould. And it says it all.

It sits outside the CBC Building on Front St, Toronto, from where, yesterday evening, ‘It looks as though the CBC will be cutting 800 jobs,’ said anchor-in-chief Peter Mansbridge.

Or words to that effect.

Mansbridge isn’t in any danger, but the  Canadian Broadcasting Corp plans to cut up to 800 jobs to help make up for a $171 million shortfall in 2009-10, says the CBC.

The Canadian Media Guild, which represents most CBC employees, “lashed out at the federal government for the cuts,” says the story, quoting union president Lise Lareau as declaring:

“I blame the loss of 800 jobs squarely on the Conservative government.

“This was an entirely avoidable layoff. The Harper government forced the CBC to make these choices over a relatively small amount of money.”

CBC president and CEO Hubert Lacroix said the public broadcaster also needs to sell $125 million worth of assets, but didn’t say which assets would go on the block.

The CBC says it’s projecting 393 layoffs in its English services and 336 in French services, with an additional 70 jobs going at the corporate level.

Layoffs could start in May and, “The full number of layoffs could be reduced if some employees opt for retirement,” says the CBC.

Lacroix said some key areas would remain unchanged.

• Radio One and Radio 2 will remain free of ads.
• CBC TV will maintain its commitment to 80 per cent Canadian content in primetime.
• The CBC will continue to invest in new media platforms.
• Regional stations will not be closed.

But, he warned, the CBC would be forced to make “many difficult choices” regarding programming.

Richard Stursberg, executive vice-president of English services, said the CBC’s English service will cut $85 million, about $14.4 million from radio and $70.3 million from television and, “This will result in layoffs and could also lead to more repeat programming.”

Toronto Star – Reruns on tap as CBC cuts, March 26, 2009
CBC – CBC to cut up to 800 jobs, sell assets, March 25, 2009

—- today.

“We don’t usually make a podcast available, but this time I’ll put one on the net within 24 hours of the broadcast, under CC licence if all our tracks will permit,” Joe promises.

“We’re going to try to keep the music non-commercial, but if we have to play a couple of commercial tracks, we’ll need a little time to edit them out.

“We’re  going to give the record industry a chance to respond after the show.”

Subjects?

Mainly copyright infringement, peer-to-peer file-sharing and ‘piracy’.

Recording Industry vs The People’s Ray Beckerman is providing a pre-taped segment, and I’ll be there (by phone) for the full two hours.

Cheers!

Jon

March, 2009

” ‘Ministers intend to pass regulations on internet piracy requiring service providers to tell customers they suspect of illegally downloading films and music that they are breaking the law, says the draft report by Lord Carter,’ according to a recent Financial Times story.

” ‘It would also make them collect data on serious and repeated infringers of copyright law, which would then be made available to music companies or other rights-holders who can produce a court order for them to be handed over’.”

On the air

Joe Farthing of Peer Guardian fame is doing a show on Aberdeen Student Radio, Scotland, tomorrow.

I understand Ray Beckerman is providing a pre-taped segment, and I’ll be there (by phone) for the full two hours.

Subjects? Mainly copyright infringement, peer-to-peer file-sharing and “piracy”

Joe is now looking for a music industry rep to balance things out.

“We want to give the media industry, the peer-to-peer networks, and the supporters and victims on each side of this issue a chance to discuss this openly,” he says. “Here in the UK, I haven’t seen the issue of piracy/downloading discussed on television or radio for quite a while. Yet, it’s more important to discuss it now than at any other time in the last five years: should we give up our privacy to monitor for piracy?

“Should copy-right infringement cases be removed from the judicial system? Are our recording artists in favour of the campaign conducted on their behalf? I don’t expect to answer all of these questions completely in two hours, but I do expect to find our what our listeners think.”

Now Joe is looking for someone from “any record label, independent or not,” to contact him by email with a view to appearing on the show.

Get in touch with him here – technical @ aberdeenstudentradio dot org.

Stay tuned. Literally.

Cheers!

Jon

March, 2009

Smashing Pumpkin frontman Billy Corgan believes performers, “deserve to be compensated, and pointed out how difficult it is to make a living in music, particularly below the star level,” says the story, goong on:

“He repeated the point that he in no way considers radio to be the enemy – and that radio is incredibly valuable as a promotional tool.

“At the same time, he said he is no fan of the labels, and has had his run-ins with them over the years. He said that it took three albums to get his own band established, and nowadays it seems bands get one try and if it doesn’t hit, that’s it – which would seem to be a label problem, not a radio problem.”

RIAA spinster-in-chief Mitch Bainwol, “still felt that the fee should be put in place, saying that new delivery platforms such as the internet have decreased the value of airplay – and that alternative media do pay royalties.

Not only but also, entertainment industry enthusiasts John Conyers and Hollywood Howard Berman, “led the charge in support of H.R. 848,” although, “many other legislators took a more measured approach to the issue, some of the calling for a third party study to, “determine just what the value of airplay promotion is, to determine where the line is as to what broadcasters could conceivably pay without going into further distress, and other issues,” adds RBR.com

Here’s entertaint lawyer Fred Wilhelms, of whom CounterPunch’s Dave Marsh said, “If the corporate music industry had any ethics, Wilhelms would be its ‘ethicist-in-chief’ ” »»»

H.R. 848, the Terrestrial Radio Performance Royalty bill currently under consideration was the subject of a hearing Tuesday before the House Judiciary Committee.  The testimony, from Billy Corgan and others, was pretty much the same as we’ve heard before.  Artists need money from radio. Radio shouldn’t have to pay because they promote the sale of music.

Not so strangely, there wasn’t one witness at all from the group that the legislation will really help the most, the record labels. 

They continue to hide behind the artists that the bill will screw over, and they lack the conscience to admit it.

Despite promises that corrective amendments would be made, the current language still ensures that all fees from non-statutory licenses negotiated between broadcasters and labels will go directly to the labels, who then promise to pay their artists according to their recording contracts. 

Only fees from statutory licenses are required to be split with 50% going to the labels, 45% to the featured artists and 5% into a fund for backup singers and session musicians.  (Of course, the statutory fees go to SoundExchange, so the majority of artists will never see that money, but that’s a different problem). 

On those negotiated licenses, artists will be lucky to see 1% of what everyone testifies they deserve.

Despite all the highminded statements entered into the record by the sponsors of the bill and the other members of the Judiciary Committee regarding the need to protect the interests of artists, this bill does nothing for them, and testimony by Corgan and other label mouthpieces in support of the current bill are nothing short of betrayal of all artists.

Wilhelms is based in Nashville, Tennessee. You can contact him at fred.wilhelms @ gmail dot com. ]

[Pic - Wikipedia -  Billy Corgan, Konzert Live Music Hall Köln, 11. Jun. 2005 | Fotograf: Benutzer:Blankpage, 11. 06. 2005 | Originaly uploaded to de.wikipedia by Benutzer:Blankpage]

RBR.com – Hill showdown over performance royalties, March10 , 2009

Pay this radio station a bunch of money and it’ll play your tunes, I said, going on, “Remind you of anyone or anything? And there’s even a special introductory price! $30 for 1,000 plays, $50 for  2,000 and $100 for 5,000 plays! Wow! Yeh. Wow. That anyone would fall for it.”

Jango is, “one of the latest efforts to milk gullible independent musicians,” I stated.

In the second article, there’s, “Something fundamentally wrong with the notion of ‘buying’ popularity,” opined Henry Emrich in a Reader’s Write.

I agree and I still see it like that. And it doesn’t matter how sophisticated and persuasive arguments for “guaranteeing plays” may be.

In the first post TonsoTunez says

Problem for Jango is that they will play ‘anything’ for the fee… which means they will be placing a bunch of crap along side music people really want to hear… That’s tune out time … and the end of Jango.

Meanwhile indie artists will be out $30.00 without a chance of any of the 1000 plays – if they ever get that many – having any effect on their careers…

Dumb idea all around.

Not so much ‘dumb’ as cynical exploitation tarted up as a ’service,’ IMO.

TonsoTunez also suggested FreshHotRadio might be worth a look and I have to admit, I edited that out thinking it was probably yet another effort to get free advertising in p2pnet, and for which I apologise.

But I went for a look anyhow. And TonsoTunez was dead on. FreshHotRadio really is Fresh. And very Hot. An extremely clever and totally new approach.

The pic on the right is from Freunderfamilie, a techno band I heard the first time I clicked over.

Here’s what FreshHotRadio’s help section says »»»

The mission of FreshHotRadio.com is to connect mainstream listeners to web-native music.The mood is up. It is for partying, working or working out.

The music is born on the web, not on CD.Sources include netlabels, social sites for musicians, and musicians’ blogs.

Exploring the music sites that these songs came from is part of the fun. During a song there is a link to the site.

The playlist is hand-curated, like a music blog.The interface is simple. Just bookmark this site and come back when you need music.

It’s easier and less distracting than Pandora.

Every song can be downloaded and embedded. This is not webcasting.Hosting is on the source site. FreshHotRadio.com only links.

To remove a link, contact email@freshhotradio.com.

To submit a DMCA takedown request, click here.

You must turn on JavaScript and install Flash to use it.It does not work with the Ad Block and Flash Block plugins.

To submit a track, use the wiki at http://freshhotradio.wikia.com/.

To share hacks and other technology, use the wiki at http://freshhotradio.wikia.com/.

To submit a bug report, use the wiki at http://freshhotradio.wikia.com/.

Definitely stay tuned, and definitely tune in.

I’m going to post my new piece (see below) there. I won’t be paying Jango $30 for the privilege, and if I get 10 listens, I’ll be happy.

You are the One (2:45)

Cheers!

Jon Newton – p2pnet

March, 2009

He was writing on the appearance of Jango, yet another online radio payola operation whose name has absolutely nothing to do with Stars Wars bounty hunter Jango Fett.

In his article, a follow-up to New Radio Payola scheme,“In book publishing, there’s a greatly undistinguished side of the business known as the ‘vanity press’,” says Fred »»»

It is where the author pays the costs to have his book printed, bound and marketed, and he pays for his copies of the book.  Normally, he gives away more than he sells.  The vanity press has been responsible a lot of bad prose and even more bad poetry.  Jango is the vanity press of Internet music.

Jango is legal.  Paying for play in this way is legal.  I’m not going to argue the ethics or morals, because the more you think about the economics of paying to entertain people, the wisdom of the argument makes those loftier considerations moot.

If Jango is a great success, it will be so filled with ’sound like’ musicians that listeners may never hear the group they went there to hear in the first place.

It could be the Internet equivalent of the popular restaurant Yogi Berra complained about when he said ‘Nobody goes there any more, it’s too crowded.’ 

“First – full disclosure,” said  Deana Graffeo in a comment post, continuing, “While I’m not an employee, I work with Jango, and it’s my name that appears on the bottom of the press release issued to announce the launch of Jango Airplay.”

Seriously, Deana, thanks for saying who you are.  Shills are so obvious and so boring and so trite, and they never achieve anything. Right Sam? Full disclosure, on the other hand, opens the door to genuine discussion where everyone knows what, or who, everyone else represents.

It’s called freedom of speech. Right, Sam?

“I read both today’s and yesterday’s articles with great interest – and while I can certainly respect the different point of view – I’m struck by the assumptions and misinformation that appear throughout,” Deana says, going on:

“But what I find most surprising is that at no time was Jango contacted for comment. The simple fact that information from the website was posted completely out of context and many assumptions were made without any regard for accuracy is pretty sad. Further to that – commentary from someone not-affiliated with the service is posted as follow up -there’s no debate here – where’s the balance? Dan Kaufman, Jango’s CEO is available, and would be most interested in speaking with you to address the potential issues and questions your articles raise. I encourage you to speak with him so your readers get a full picture and can decide for themselves. We look forward to hearing from you.”

In response,  “Please tell Dan he’s free, and welcome, to join in the discussion with a comment post outlining his perspective on either or both stories … in full, and at any length,” I said.

And while we wait for  Dan, below are two Reader’s Writes from the initial post, one anonynous, and one from Henry Emrich.

First, Henry »»»

So if I shell over a few hundred bucks, Jango will insinuate my stuff into people’s playlists? Where the hell is the “choice” in that, I ask you? If the site is about creating custom playlists of stuff you like — and finding stuff that’s similar to stuff you already like, that’s one thing. But to pay jango to force my stuff on people surreptitiously? Nah. So all I have to do — if I’m a savvy busnesslike type, is to pick a whole bunch of semi-random things I think I sound like: “I sound like the Beatles, Mantovani orchestra, David Seville and the chipmunks, Eminem, and Billy Ray Cyrus”, and — voilla! — large numbers of people are suddenly exposed to my stuff, which has been inserted into “their” custom-generated playlists, simply on the basis of me paying a few hundred bucks, and saying I sound like their favorites?

Sorry, but I really can’t get into the idea of paying Jango to “pimp” my stuff in that way.

2. What happens to artists who haven’t paid Jango? What if I like “Zippy McWhipplefarb and his swingin’ Kazoo band”, but they haven’t bought time on Jango? Obviously — if Jango even bothers to have their stuff available — they’ll get bumped in favor of people who’ve paid Jango to plug their stuff.

The net result of this will be: “custom, user-generated playlists” which are inevitably skewed AWAY from what the listener would have chosen, and full of the stuff Jango WANTS you to hear. So the “custom playlists” won’t actually be playlists/stations of your own choosing, now will they?

Another result is that if acts didn’t pay Jango, their stuff gets tossed to the bottom — and you can bet that the “majors” will be throwing money at Jango like mad, just like they skew broadcast-radio playlists in their favor.

It’s stupid, overpriced, payola bullshit.

I dunno, but this just stinks of the same old “pay-for-hype” that made Milli Vanilli “stars.”

Something fundamentally wrong with the notion of “buying” popularity.

And then anonymous »»»

I’m not sure the reader’s write above might be old enough to remember the radio days of yore. Let me sort of expand on the olden radio days during the heyday of music.

You have a great new tune? Not affiliated with the major labels? Well, you could go to the DJ, ask him really nicely, and he was likely to put your tune on for radio land to hear. You as a listener got to hear new tunes that just might be exactly what your ear canals have always been yearning for. Beyond setting up getting it into a container for the radio station that it could use, that was about the only cost.

Then came along the likes of ClearChannel, who went on a buying spree of radio stations across the nation. When that wasn’t enough, ClearChannel got involved in politics and an even greater amount of radio stations were allowed for them to be bought. ClearChannel depended on payolla to keep the bucks rolling in along with commercials. For being paid by the major studios, they would see that the tune was played x amount of times. Radio DJ’s had their option of putting on whatever local talent might be taken away from them. They would only play what play lists, the head of scheduling laid out. Otherwise ClearChannel couldn’t rake in as much dough.

Later even DJs were removed from local radio stations and they became rebroadcast stations sucking in from a common program and just repeating the signal. Call one of those radio stations sometime with a local emergency you need to get on the air. Won’t happen because there is no one there to take the phone call.

Now you never hear new music on the stations, unless it is on the list from the majors as being groomed for the next top 40 hit. Every hour is the same tunes played over and over. You don’t get new music, unless it is on a syndicated show like a Sunday special program.

The other half of the income, the commercial, became so heavily laced into the programming, that it was like the music was the excuse to air commercials. ClearChannel was forced to reduce commercial air time because they were hemorrhaging listeners leaving for other ways to hear music. While they made a big deal of it and how it was to benefit the listener, the real truth of it was they had no choice in the matter as they were driving off their listeners through so much advertisement.

So we come down to another “service” trying to make money on something that should be for free. What most of these outfits do, is wait till they got a large audience or user group and then try and turn that into a money making scheme. I call you to FaceBook as a prime example of that mentality. Where this winds up if they are successful is they figure out new income streams that double dip, such as the commercial plus payolla scheme. It’s rather lucrative for everyone but the listener who is stuck with blah, day after day. The service starts out with a nice income and down the road gets greedy. That in turn ruins the experience for the audience and drives them on to other places, their once favorite place turned into some site they no longer recognize.

Because it is totally optional it tells me that they have a little scheme going. You pay us, we’ll advertise you, otherwise you don’t get any special recognition. In essence that is what these groups are buying. Despite what all commercial broadcasters, radio stations, newspapers, magazines and on and on tell you about ads being so desired to reduce costs, they are in truth a major annoyance. They are purposely cut out of tv series if you find them to download. People actively seek and find ways to terminate advertisements so they can enjoy what ever it is they want without that annoyance. They recognize just how bad it is. It’s the last thing the broadcasters want to see because it effects their income stream.

I’ve had it with the commercial. Ever since I quit watching tv, I have become sensitized to these intrusive breaks in programming. Call me a drop out but if it looks like advertisement, sounds like advertisement, and feels like advertisement, then it ain’t a duck.

Stay tuned.

March, 2009

Jango is one of the latest efforts to milk gullible independent musicians

“Pay this radio station a bunch of money and it’ll play your tunes,” we said, going on, “Remind you of anyone or anything? And there’s even a special introductory price! $30 for 1,000 plays, $50 for  2,000 and $100 for 5,000 plays!

“Wow!”

Yeh. Wow. That anyone would fall for it.

Fred Wilhelms is a Nashville,  Tennessee, entertainment lawyer and p2pnet contributor of whom, “If the corporate music industry had any ethics, Wilhelms would be its ‘ethicist-in-chief’,” wrote CounterPunch’s Dave Marsh.

We asked him what he thought of the Jango venture, and here’s what he said »»»

When someone pays to have their music played on a terrestrial radio station, there are two major benefits to the payor; his music is heard, and someone else’s is not.  Payola makes economic sense for the person paying it when access to music is limited, like on the FM band, because a radio listener has little choice in what he or she hears at a given moment, short of turning the radio off.  In some places, at some times, there will be more options, but choice is still limited to what you can find on the radio dial.

Because of that, payola really shouldn’t work on the Internet.  Listeners have too many choices, and they’re too easy to make, and, as Pandora has taught us, we can pretty much tell Internet stations the kind of music we want to hear, any time, all the time. 

Besides that, if we don’t want somebody telling us what kind of music we’re supposed to like, because they say it is similar to stuff we say we like, we can always find another station that won’t have an agenda, or at least won’t be as pushy about it.

In essence, Internet radio is the ultimate democracy, because every artist can be king of his own domain (name) and Payola is ultimately undemocratic, because it isn’t popularity that creates access under pay-for-play, it’s just money.

So, into the wide open spaces of the democratic chaos of the Internet, here comes Jango.

For the great unwashed public, like me, Jango is an Internet radio station that, like Pandora, allows a listener to identify favorite artists and hear their songs and other artists Jango decides are ‘like’ your favorites.  The available stations aren’t as extensive as Pandora’s.  Five artists for whom I have Pandora stations don’t show up in the Jango database at all. And I don’t think a lot of the connections they do make. 

I don’t think the Rolling Stones are ‘like’ the Velvet Underground, and I am even more sure the Beach Boys aren’t ‘like’ the Velvet Underground, but those were the first two non V.U. groups on my Janga Velvet Underground station.

So why build an inferior Pandora?

Because there’s money to be made from it. 

Not from the listeners.  

Not from advertisers.

From musicians.

That’s right.  You’ve got a song you want the world to hear?  Jango will play it, for a price.  $30 for 1,000 plays, $50 for  2,000 and $100 for 5,000 plays! 

That’s right, you PAY them to play the music you GIVE them for free. 

And they promise to play it at least 1,000 times, although there’s no indication how long it might take to reach that kind of benchmark, or how you get to keep track of the count. And those folks who listen in, who say they like music by a specific artist, get to hear your song if you tell Jango your music is like that artist. 

So if you say your music is like Velvet Underground, your record might just be the one sandwiched in between the Rolling Stones and the Beach Boys tomorrow!

But the real kicker is that you really aren’t replacing anyone else’s song.  Everybody who pays their $30 gets the same chance as you to have their music played 1,000 times, and the same guarantee from Jango that they will have that chance.  Good, bad or indifferent, that song is going to be played 1,000 times, just like your song. 

Your music isn’t displacing anyone else’s, you’re just moving it to a different play slot, just as someone else’s $30 is undoubtedly moving your music.

If you’re the only one who buys in, it’s not a bad deal, but every time another musician with the same ’sounds like’ buys in, your chance to reach a new audience is diminished.  If you’re one of 1,000 artists that say you each sound like The Killers (and remember, I could have said James Blunt), how often do you think you’re going to make an impact, even for $30. 

When everyone bribes the gatekeeper the same amount, even if it’s legal, it ends up just as if no one pays. 

You don’t get any advantage, and your music probably ends up lost in the tidal wave of noise created by all the others that bought time. 

It’s democratic payola, which means it isn’t going to be democratic, and it isn’t going to work as payola.

In book publishing, there’s a greatly undistinguished side of the business known as the ‘vanity press.’  It is where the author pays the costs to have his book printed, bound and marketed, and he pays for his copies of the book.  Normally, he gives away more than he sells.  The vanity press has been responsible a lot of bad prose and even more bad poetry.  Jango is the vanity press of Internet music.

Jango is legal.  Paying for play in this way is legal.  I’m not going to argue the ethics or morals, because the more you think about the economics of paying to entertain people, the wisdom of the argument makes those loftier considerations moot.

If Jango is a great success, it will be so filled with ’sound like’ musicians that listeners may never hear the group they went there to hear in the first place. 

It could be the Internet equivalent of the popular restaurant Yogi Berra complained about when he said ‘Nobody goes there any more, it’s too crowded.’

You can contact Fred at  fred.wilhelms @ gmail dot com.

p2pnet – New Radio Payola scheme, March 5, 2009

Pay this radio station a bunch of money and it’ll play your tunes.

Remind you of anyone or anything?

And there’s even a special introductory price!

$30 for 1,000 plays, $50 for  2,000 and $100 for 5,000 plays!

Wow!

Apparently,  “Jango.com is a Top 10 US music site where millions of people play and share their won custom radio stations tailored to their taste. To create their stations, Jango users type in a few artists that they like — and we play them a custom discovery mix of those artists and ’similar artists’ they’re likely to like.”

Millions,  eh? Wow!

It’s a, “great way to get discovered,” says the site because, “not only will your song actually play thousands of times — it will play to people who like similar music to yours and explicitly want to discover new music. And if your song is popular, your Jango Airplay package is just the beginning of a strong and effective presence for you on Jango.”

Gosh jillikers!

And guess what !?  – “If you’re interested in a bigger buy … a sales rep will be in touch soon to see how we can meet your needs on a larger scale.”

Gee!

Not only but also — “It’s the easy way to play the music you want online, legally and free. An internet radio service, Jango follows all restrictions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and pays royalties due to artists every time a song is played.”

How does it work?

After handing over your hard-earned cash, “You simply upload your MP3 and choose between 5 and 10 popular artists you think you sound like — and your song will play right after those artists in the personal stations of people who like those artists.”

Is Jango based in Nigeria, home of 419 arteests, perhaps?

Or are we being too harsh?

Anyhow, it’s in New York,  NY,  from the look of it.

March, 2009

The settlement came as a surprise to those negotiating on behalf of small webcasters as it appeared that SoundExchange had never really put this “settlement” to them before announcing it.

 The intention of this grandstanding was transparent.  The negotiation window granted to SoundExchange and webcasters by Congress last fall in the Small Webcaster Settlement Act of 2008 expired on February 15, and SoundExchange’s announcement was a rather naked play to its friends in Congress of how seriously it was negotiating.  (Recent reports say the negotiations are continuing past the deadline.)  

The real audience for the announcement wasn’t the webcasters, or even the public, it was the 535 members of Congress upon whom SoundExchange’s RIAA masters depend on for protection in these troubled economic times.

Underscoring the worthlessness of the “settlement” were two conditions attached to a webcaster’s acceptance of the terms. 

• First, if a webcaster accepts the terms and later sells the webcast, the new owner has to pay the higher royalty rates, retroactive to 2006. 
• Second, anyone accepting the terms also has to agree not to participate in the next round of CRB royalty hearings covering the years 2011-2015.

 The last time that SoundExchange announced a unilateral settlement with small webcasters, they predicted that thousands of those webcasters would agree to the offered terms. 

That announcement, strictly by coincidence, happened the same day that there were House hearings on webcasting royalties.  About 25 small webcasters did sign up in the first week, and, as far as anyone knows, nobody has joined them. 

 SoundExchange, which has been known to issue a self-congratulatory press release when they open a new box of paperclips, has been oddly silent about those webcasters rushing to accep the new terms.

Fred Wilhelms – p2pnet
[If the corporate music industry had any ethics, Wilhelms would be its ‘ethicist-in-chief,’ wrote CounterPunch’s Dave Marsh. Wilhelms is an entertainment attorney based in Nashville, Tennessee. You can contact him at fred.wilhelms @ gmail dot com. ]

February , 2009

What was perhaps most shocking about the announcement was: it didn’t come as a complete surprise to the NAB.  For once, it appears the SoundExchange actually negotiated something rather than simply issuing a press release.

But the announced rates are something of a puzzle.

Although there appears to be a discount from the CRB-established rates retroactively to 2006 and forward to 2010, there’s an escalation clause that covers 2011-2015 that doesn’t seem to do the broadcasters much good in terms of reducing their royalty obligations.

Of course, having a settlement go out that far into the future will save them all those legal fees sure to result from the next round of CRB hearings (which have been mooted for NAB members by this settlement) so there is that to consider.

For artists, the settlement is a good thing because the settled rates will be included in the statute.

This means that the recording artists heard on NAB simulcasts will be entitled to 45% of the royalty revenue.

Of course, because they have to count on SoundExchange to pay out that share, whether SoundExchange actually bothers to find them is anybody’s guess.

However, my outsider’s guess here is: there’s still another shoe to drop with the NAB, given Congress is again considering a terrestrial radio performance royalty bill that could cost the NAB members multiple millions a year in new costs.

It’s difficult to believe the Internet simulcast royalty discussions took place with everyone agreeing to ignore the very large elephant in the room.  Time will tell, I guess, but I wouldn’t be terribly surprised to see the NAB being resigned to a terrestrial radio royalty built along the same rate framework as the simulcast settlement.

Fred Wilhelms – p2pnet
[If the corporate music industry had any ethics, Wilhelms would be its 'ethicist-in-chief,' wrote CounterPunch's Dave Marsh. Wilhelms is an entertainment attorney based in Nashville, Tennessee. You can contact him at fred.wilhelms @ gmail dot com. ]

February , 2009

»»»

Fossil discovery sheds new light on Arctic’s past Montreal Gazette

The discovery of a 90-million-year-old turtle fossil in the Canadian Arctic — thousands of kilometres from the ancient reptile’s original freshwater habitat in Asia — is shedding new light on the temperate past of the polar north and the trans-Arctic migrations of prehistoric creatures.

»»»

Don’t piss off the snowplow guy CBC

Montreal snowplow driver suspended for burying car. A Montreal snowplow driver has been suspended after he dumped a whopping pile of snow onto a car after a dispute over a parking space. Now the couple who found their car looking more like an igloo than a sedan want an apology from the driver.

»»»

Protester throws shoe at Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao in Britain News Au

A PROTESTER overnight threw a shoe at Chinese premier Wen Jiabao as he was giving a speech at Britain’s Cambridge University, just missing him. “This is a scandal” he shouted before security staff bundled him out of a concert hall at the university, where Mr Wen was speaking on the last day of a five-nation tour of Europe. The premier appeared unruffled by the incident and resumed his speech before taking questions.

»»»

Graffiti girl Cheyene Back jailed for first offence Daily Telegraph

An 18-year-old girl with no prior criminal history has been jailed for writing her nickname on the wall of a Sydney cafe. Cheyene Back, who turned 18 last month, wept as she was sentenced to three months full-time custody for graffiti on the public wall at Hyde Park Cafe. She was convicted of intentionally destroying or damaging property in Downing Centre Local Court this afternoon.

»»»

30 lashes for smoking on plane Daily Telegraph

A Sundanese man has been sentenced to 30 lashes for smoking on a domestic Saudi Arabian Airlines flight. The unnamed man had refused to put out his cigarette on the flight to the Red Sea port city of Jeddah from Qurayyat in northern Saudi Arabia. He was arrested by police when the aircraft landed in Jeddah and sentenced to 30 lashes by a local court on Sunday.

»»»

Sewage yields more gold than top mines Reuters

A sewage treatment facility in central Japan has recorded a higher gold yield from sludge than can be found at some of the world’s best mines. An official in Nagano prefecture, northwest of Tokyo, said the high percentage of gold found at the Suwa facility was probably due to the large number of precision equipment manufacturers in the vicinity that use the yellow metal. The facility recently recorded finding 1,890 grammes of gold per tonne of ash from incinerated sludge. That is a far higher gold content than Japan’s Hishikari Mine, one of the world’s top gold mines, owned by Sumitomo Metal Mining Co Ltd, which contains 20-40 grammes of the precious metal per tonne of ore.

»»»

Students call space station with home-built radio Globe and Mail

Four Toronto college students have accomplished a technological feat that their teachers are calling a first. The Humber College seniors made contact with the International Space Station Monday with a radio system they designed and built themselves. School officials say that, to their knowledge, that’s never been accomplished by students at the college level. The project got off the ground about a year ago as the students looked for a way to apply knowledge gained from their radio communication courses.

»»»

Hash brownie impairs bus driver Ottawa Sun

A 27-year-old man was charged with poisoning a Greyhound bus driver after the driver fell ill while driving the bus southwest of Cornwall on Friday. Police charged one of the passengers, a Whitby man, with possession of drugs and administering a noxious thing with intent to annoy.

»»»

Pong turns 40, gets own museum Beta News

A site celebrating the 40th anniversary of the invention of Pong, pongmuseum.com, has opened. With the museum comes a video directly from inventor Ralph H. Baer and engineer Bill Harrison playing a demonstration model of their invention.

»»»

French court fines Google over trade marked keywords The Register

A French court has fined search engine giant Google €350,000 and said that its search advertising business has infringed on two companies’ trade marks. Google allows anyone to pay to have their adverts appear beside certain words. Trade mark holders have argued that allowing other people to buy an association with their brands constitutes trade mark infringement. French courts have previously agreed, upholding complaints by Louis Vuitton Moet Hennessy and Meridien Hotels that their trade marks were infringed by the system. Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris has ordered Google to pay €200,000 to Voyageurs du Monde (Travellers of the World) and €150,000 to Terres d’Aventure (Lands of Adventure), despite the judge saying that the commercial harm to the companies was marginal. The company has also been ordered to pay €60,000 in costs. Google said that it has already appealed the case to the Paris Court of Appeal.
»»»Sleep on the job and get paid Toronto Sun

Find it hard to stay awake at work? Maybe it’s time for a new gig. The New Museum of New York City is looking for women between the ages of 18 and 40 to be a part of an art installation where a woman sleeps in a bed in the gallery, according to newsday.com. Oh, and they pay $10 an hour — as long as you’re asleep for your six-hour shift.

»»»

Iran launches first home-made satellite Reuters

Iran launched its first home-made satellite into orbit on Tuesday, state television reported, displaying progress in space technology at a time of persistent international tension over its nuclear program. The Omid (Hope) satellite, launched as Iran marks the 30th anniversary of the 1979 Islamic revolution this month, was designed for research and telecommunications, said the television, which carried footage of the launch.

»»»

Ten new amphibian species discovered in Colombia Reuters

Ten new species of amphibians — including three kinds of poisonous frogs and three transparent-skinned glass frogs — have been discovered in the mountains of Colombia, conservationists said Monday. The new species discovered in Colombia include three poison frogs, three glass frogs, one harlequin frog, two kinds of rain frogs and one salamander. The expedition that turned up the new amphibians also recorded the presence of large mammals like Baird’s tapir, which is considered endangered in Colombia, four species of monkeys and a population of white-lipped peccary, a pig-like creature.

»»»

IBM computer will have power of 2 million laptops Reuters

Seven months after IBM delivered the world’s fastest supercomputer, it has announced an even speedier one with the computing power of 2 million laptops. IBM said on Tuesday it is developing the technology for its new Sequoia computer, with delivery scheduled in 2011 to the Department of Energy for use at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Sequoia will chug along at 20 petaflops per second and is one order of magnitude quicker than its predecessor. The earlier machine, delivered in June to the Energy Department, broke the 1 petaflop barrier. Peta is a term for quadrillion and FLOP stands for floating point operations per second.

»»»

Majority of vulnerabilities go unpatched, IBM Report ZDnet

More than half of the security vulnerabilities disclosed during 2008 had no patches available from the vendor by the end of the year, according to a report released on Monday by IBM’s X-Force research group. Meanwhile, 46 percent of vulnerabilities from 2006 and 44 percent from 2007 still had no patch by the end of 2008, the 2008 X-Force Trend and Risk report said. X-Force documented a record number of 7,406 new vulnerabilities last year.

February , 2009