Internet Radio and Webcasting dealt "Fatal Blow" - BBC
Summer Storms
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6562823.stm
Meat of the story:
______________________________________
US webcasters will face sharp rises in royalty fees that could be
"fatal" to the nascent industry, a coalition of web broadcasters has
claimed.
The increases will start on 15 May and will eventually charge royalties
every time an online listener hears a song.
The decision to impose the fees was made by a panel of judges who threw
out requests to overturn an earlier ruling.
Public and commercial broadcasters claim it will force cuts to services
used by an estimated 50 million people.
"If these rates stand... I believe we'll see a virtual shutdown all of
US webcasting," wrote Kurt Hanson, CEO of AccuRadio, on the
SaveInternetRadio.org blog.
"That will be bad for listeners, webcasters, musicians, and the record
industry alike."
But SoundExchange, the not for profit group which will collect the fees
on behalf of labels and artists, welcomed the decision.
"Our artists and labels look forward to working with the Internet Radio
industry - large and small, commercial and non-commercial - so that
together we can ensure it succeeds as a place where great music is
available to music lovers of all genres," said John Simson, executive
director of the group.
'Creative costs'
The decision to increase fees was made by the Copyright Royalty Board
(CRB) which reviewed an earlier decision to increase royalty fees
collected from web broadcasters.
A broad coalition of internet broadcaster, headed by the US broadcaster
National Public Radio (NPR) and including Yahoo and AOL, objected to the
increases.
But the copyright judges on the board said that they had not shown any
new evidence which would influence their original decision.
The CRB wrote: "Most of the parties' arguments in support of a rehearing
or reconsideration merely restate arguments that were made or evidence
that was presented during the proceeding."
The new fees, which will apply until 2010, will charge a flat fee
per-song, per-user in addition to a $500 fee for every channel owned by
a station. Fees will increase every year until 2010.
Radio stations with multiple channels, such as NPR, would be charged
thousands of dollars, which they claim will cripple them.
Previously, stations paid an annual fee plus 12% of their profits.
The fees will start on 15 May 2007 and will be collected retrospectively
for 2006. Webcasters will be allowed to calculate retrospective payments
by averaging listening hours.
"Pricing internet radio off the air in the US is clearly a retrograde
step" - Felix Miller, Last.fm
Kim Roberts Hedgpeth of the American Federation of Television and Radio
Artists (AFTRA) said the new payments rewarded the "creativity, talent
and hard work" of musicians.
"Internet radio is growing and successful because fans want to listen to
the music created by artists. The CRB's decision recognises that, as
these businesses grow, both featured and non-featured artists should be
compensated at fair market rates for their contributions to the growth
of these companies."
'Backwards step'
But many web broadcasters attacked the decision saying that the new fees
would force them into bankruptcy.
AccuRadio.com said that in 2005 they paid 5% of their revenues to
songwriters and the 12% required by SoundExchange.
"On $400,000 (£200,000) in revenues, we paid Sound Exchange about
$48,000 (£24,000)," wrote Mr Hanson. "Under the judges' decision, we owe
$600,000 (£300,000) for 2006 - which is about 150% of our total
revenues. That would absolutely bankrupt us and will force us to shut down."
He said the wider implications of the decision were "possibly fatal for
internet radio".
The decision has also been attacked by UK web broadcasters.
Felix Miller, co-founder of Last.fm, said: "It's ludicrous that America,
a country that portrays itself as an internet innovator, may be the
first to shut down its web radio."
"Pricing internet radio off the air in the US is clearly a retrograde
step and very bad news for anyone who cares about the way music is
listened to now. We'd like to think that the UK would take a less
short-sighted view."
A campaign called SaveNetRadio.org has now been set up to put pressure
on Congress to resolve the problem and "create an environment where
Internet radio, and the millions of artists it features, can continue to
grow for generations to come."
______________________________________
I don't know about the rest of you, but I can definitely say that
listening to online radio has caused me to spend MORE money on CD's and
such, not less. There are artists I never would have heard of if not for
internet radio, and once I heard them, I've often gone out and bought
their CD's... in some cases, their entire discography. In other cases,
I've purchased downloads of their songs. So any artist or label who
thinks that internet radio hurts, rather than helps, their bottom line
has their head crammed up an orifice it was never meant to occupy.
Also, internet radio is the best way for non-mainstream and/or
relatively unknown musicians to get their work out to the public, since
they aren't likely to be played on commercial radio stations. As a
sometime musician myself, this is an issue very close to my heart.
Now, here's a link to a petition that those of us in the States can sign
and have forwarded to our Congresscritters to try to save Internet Radio
as we know it. Please sign the petition, add your comments, and if you
would be so kind, please forward both the link to the petition and the
article from above to everyone you know who might *at all* be concerned
with this injustice.
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/saveinternetradio/
Thank you, sincerely - THANK YOU!
--
Remove dotty rant to reply.
My Discussion Board: http://talkfreedom.netfreehost.com
My Blog: http://summerbythelakeside.wordpress.com
"I think we're in a culture of "Bread and Circuses", and the neocons
have found they don't even have to provide bread to the masses if the
circuses are distracting enough." - Christianlib, April 6, 2007 on
TalkFreedom
"Disbelief in magic can force a poor soul into believing in government
and business." - Tom Robbins
"Education is not the taming or domestication of the soul's raw passions
-- not suppressing them or excising them, which would deprive the soul
of its energy -- but forming and informing them as art." - Allen Bloom
Nohbody
number of monkeys bang out the following:
> Now, here's a link to a petition that those of us in the States can sign
> and have forwarded to our Congresscritters to try to save Internet Radio
> as we know it. Please sign the petition, add your comments, and if you
> would be so kind, please forward both the link to the petition and the
> article from above to everyone you know who might *at all* be concerned
> with this injustice.
>
> http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/saveinternetradio/
I'm not trying to be a dickhead, but, honestly, how many online
petitions have accomplished anything? Never mind issues like
accountability (for all J. Random Congresscritter's staffer knows, an
online petition's entries could be forged by a bot/script or someone
with plenty of time on their hands who wants to stuff the ballot box, so
to speak), with things like the petition a few years back to rename "The
Two Towers" movie because it was said to be a slam on the WTC attack,
online petition credibility is somewhat dubious, at best.
Congresspeople in particular are known for being ignorant of the
internet in general ("pipes", anyone?), which further reduces the chance
of it actually having any effect.
If you (generic "you") want to get their attention, take the time to
write a paper letter to voice your opinion. Someone who'll take the
time to write or type a physical letter and pay the postage for it* is
going to bear a LOT more weight (especially if written like the author
wasn't some random rambling whackjob with a tenuous grasp on reality in
general) with some congressperson than an online petition.
Dan Poore
--
About the only difference between the wingnuts on each end of the
[political] spectrum is *which* civil right(s) they think we can do
without. -- Rowan Hawthorn, in alt.callahans (2/28/05)
* As has been mentioned here in the past, in the US postage for mail to
Congress isn't covered by the postal service.
Summer Storms
So, Dan, that means we shouldn't try?
Sorry, I reject that.
Nohbody
number of monkeys bang out the following:
> Nohbody wrote:
> > If you (generic "you") want to get their attention, take the time to
> > write a paper letter to voice your opinion. Someone who'll take the
> > time to write or type a physical letter and pay the postage for it* is
> > going to bear a LOT more weight (especially if written like the author
> > wasn't some random rambling whackjob with a tenuous grasp on reality in
> > general) with some congressperson than an online petition.
>
> So, Dan, that means we shouldn't try?
>
> Sorry, I reject that.
As you should.
Read the part of my original post that's quoted above.
People with money to give (and not necessarily large amounts) get first
priority on access. Letter-writers are next in the priority queue, phone
callers after that, e-mail well below the phone, and petitions at just
about the bottom of the pile.
(The above assuming the communications in question are rational and
coherent, not just wild rambling with little structure or logic. I
suspect the kookgrams are, at best, saved for interns/staffers to read
when they need a laugh.)
Firesong
<summerbyt...@gRANTmailDOT.com> wrote:
>Nohbody wrote:
>> If you (generic "you") want to get their attention, take the time to
>> write a paper letter to voice your opinion. Someone who'll take the
>> time to write or type a physical letter and pay the postage for it* is
>> going to bear a LOT more weight (especially if written like the author
>> wasn't some random rambling whackjob with a tenuous grasp on reality in
>> general) with some congressperson than an online petition.
>
>So, Dan, that means we shouldn't try?
>
>Sorry, I reject that.
According to this part of his post, it means you should try in a
manner which, whilst more personally tiresome than the 20 seconds
taken to sign up for an onlinie petition, is more likely to be heard.
He wasn't saying don't do it, he was saying do it effectively.
Firesong
Frank McCoy
CongressCritters usually respond quite well to personally written
dead-tree snail-mail. Handwritten is even better.
It shows you CARE enough to do something personally.
One carefully handwritten note would likely gather more response than
several hundred email.
Don't just "sign a petition" ... You then are just a statistic to be
counted. Write a letter, and you'll be *heard*.
--
_____
/ ' / ™
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_
denaldo
No. It just means instead of sticking your head out
the window, yelling "stop that", and feeling like you
have actually accomplished something, just write a
letter that might actually do some good.
--
"Reginald wrote, 'Never be a pioneer. It is the early
Christian that gets the fattest lion.'" Saki
'Pointless' replies may be made to den...@veriPOINTzon.net
Mr Van Wau Wau
> Summer Storms wrote:
> > Nohbody wrote:
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
the only problem with that is there are people like me who are shut
ins. people unable to get a letter out or make a long distance phone
call for various reasons. An internet Petition is the only way for us
to make our voice known.
signed
David Guillot
Larisa
whatsoever - petition your favorite artist/copyright holder to waive
their royalties for Internet radio play. I think most will agree -
it's free advertising for them, and they don't particularly want
Internet radio to go out of business.
I've already contacted the online ragtime radio station and waived my
royalties. Presumably (I'm hoping...) this will lead to more airplay
for me - and thus, more listeners who may be inspired to purchase my
CD. I really don't know why any musician in their right mind would
not do this - the earnings from Internet radio play are extremely
small, whereas the advertising value is incredible. This also
effectively shuts out the big corporate copyright-holders - because
they'll be unwilling to waive the royalties.
This, incidentally, is an open message to anyone who runs an Internet
radio station and who might want to play ragtime on it - I will not
collect royalties from any Internet radio station that wants to play
my CD. Contact me if interested, and I'll gladly send you the disc.
LM
Nohbody
monkeys bang out the following:
> On Apr 18, 7:38 am, denaldo <dena...@verizPOINTon.net> wrote:
> > No. It just means instead of sticking your head out
> > the window, yelling "stop that", and feeling like you
> > have actually accomplished something, just write a
> > letter that might actually do some good.
>
> the only problem with that is there are people like me who are shut
> ins. people unable to get a letter out or make a long distance phone
> call for various reasons. An internet Petition is the only way for us
> to make our voice known.
The point of my original post in this thread was that internet petitions
AREN'T going to make your voice known. They do little more than waste
the time of you and other signees, the person organizing the petition,
and the intern or staffer that handles e-mailings from constituents.
And how, out of curiosity, are you unable to invest the buck or so of a
stamp, envelope, and paper, and some time to write out your concerns to
mail out? I mean, even someone like Alexis, way up in Alaska, gets
postal service on a regular basis.
The TheatrElf
news:Z1zVh.27064$254....@bignews7.bellsouth.net:
> The point of my original post in this thread was that internet
> petitions AREN'T going to make your voice known. They do
> little more than waste the time of you and other signees, the
> person organizing the petition, and the intern or staffer that
> handles e-mailings from constituents.
BTW, the current system being used in regards to the internet
radio licensing bill isn't using email. It creates a fax from
the person filling in the info. The system "reads" your address
and automatically sends a fax FROM YOU to your representatives.
The fax has your name, address and telephone number. You can use
a generated message, or create one entirely of your own
composition.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html
http://camera-ephemera.blogspot.com/
Moving parts in rubbing contact require lubrication to avoid
excessive wear.
Summer Storms
> Summer Storms <summerbyt...@gRANTmailDOT.com> made an infinite
> number of monkeys bang out the following:
>
>> Nohbody wrote:
>>> If you (generic "you") want to get their attention, take the time to
>>> write a paper letter to voice your opinion. Someone who'll take the
>>> time to write or type a physical letter and pay the postage for it* is
>>> going to bear a LOT more weight (especially if written like the author
>>> wasn't some random rambling whackjob with a tenuous grasp on reality in
>>> general) with some congressperson than an online petition.
>> So, Dan, that means we shouldn't try?
>>
>> Sorry, I reject that.
>
> As you should.
>
> Read the part of my original post that's quoted above.
>
> People with money to give (and not necessarily large amounts) get first
> priority on access. Letter-writers are next in the priority queue, phone
> callers after that, e-mail well below the phone, and petitions at just
> about the bottom of the pile.
>
> (The above assuming the communications in question are rational and
> coherent, not just wild rambling with little structure or logic. I
> suspect the kookgrams are, at best, saved for interns/staffers to read
> when they need a laugh.)
>
> Dan Poore
Uh, Dan? I wrote the original post on this thread. I sincerely hope that
you aren't accusing either me, or the BBC (which I quoted) of being
"kooks". And the petition to which I linked certainly isn't written in
"kook-ese".
And I actually have seen petitions do some good, on various issues.
They've certainly managed to get the attention of *my* representatives a
time or two. And remember, that many times the final petition is *NOT*
sent via e-mail, but rather is printed out, with the names of all who
signed it online attached, and mailed, on paper, to the Congresscritters
in question.
Also, since when does signing a petition of this type preclude one from
also sending a personal letter?
Denny Wheeler
>Instead of sending an Internet petition - which will do nothing
>whatsoever - petition your favorite artist/copyright holder to waive
>their royalties for Internet radio play. I think most will agree -
>it's free advertising for them, and they don't particularly want
>Internet radio to go out of business.
The artists may well waive royalties; the RIAA companies definitely
won't, as they're the force behind this whole thing.
Perhaps the same fee structure should be applied to over-the-air
broadcasts. (this of course would mean the end of music on the radio,
period.)
So much per song per listener??? That's remarkably shortsighted even
for the RIAA.
--
-denny-
curmudgeon & editor
"To be a book-collector is to combine the worst characteristics
of a dope fiend with those of a miser."
- Robertson Davies
Larisa
<den...@TANSTAAFL.zipcon.net.INVALID> wrote:
> On 18 Apr 2007 12:28:17 -0700, Larisa <purple_bov...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Instead of sending an Internet petition - which will do nothing
> >whatsoever - petition your favorite artist/copyright holder to waive
> >their royalties for Internet radio play. I think most will agree -
> >it's free advertising for them, and they don't particularly want
> >Internet radio to go out of business.
>
> The artists may well waive royalties; the RIAA companies definitely
> won't, as they're the force behind this whole thing.
Ah - but this will work out very well for the self-represented artists
out there. Like me. <grinning insufferably at the thought of myself
as an "artist"> Let the RIAA handicap its musicians all it wants - I
don't care. There are lots of musicians out there who record their
own CD's and who are their own production companies. They will
cheerfully waive royalties if it means keeping their radio station on
the air. What will happen, I think, is that those musicians will be
the only ones left on those Internet radio stations; and this may not
altogether be a bad thing. Percentage-wise, they'll be getting much
more exposure.
I post on a ragtime Yahoo Group, and the guy who runs the ragtime
radio station posts there too. When he first complained about the
proposed fee increase, I wrote that I will waive my fee; and quite a
few other musicians also chimed in - we all want to keep this radio
station on the air.
> Perhaps the same fee structure should be applied to over-the-air
> broadcasts. (this of course would mean the end of music on the radio,
> period.)
No, just the end of RIAA music on the radio. And this may very well
lead to a significant power shift. If they want to shoot themselves
in the foot this way - let them. I, personally, am rather sick of all
this RIAA nonsense.
The RIAA is becoming increasingly irrelevant. Heck, I'm a clueless
amateur and I produced a salable ragtime piano CD on my first try, in
my own living room, with about $500 worth of equipment. Every single
ragtime musician I know records their own CD and basically is their
own record label; big record labels aren't so interested in ragtime.
Services like CDBaby can bring these musicians directly to a worldwide
audience without some record label taking the lion's share of the
profits. Many of the CD's I own were recorded and produced with no
RIAA intervention - and they sound professional.
Look on CDBaby sometime, and see just how much cool stuff there is out
there. I was rather flabbergasted, myself. If all of those musicians
were to put their mind to it, they could save Internet radio. And if
you send *them* this petition of yours, it just might have the desired
effect.
LM
Larisa
> Nohbody <l...@my.reply-to.address> wrote innews:Z1zVh.27064$254....@bignews7.bellsouth.net:
>
> > The point of my original post in this thread was that internet
> > petitions AREN'T going to make your voice known. They do
> > little more than waste the time of you and other signees, the
> > person organizing the petition, and the intern or staffer that
> > handles e-mailings from constituents.
>
> BTW, the current system being used in regards to the internet
> radio licensing bill isn't using email. It creates a fax from
> the person filling in the info. The system "reads" your address
> and automatically sends a fax FROM YOU to your representatives.
>
> The fax has your name, address and telephone number. You can use
> a generated message, or create one entirely of your own
> composition.
And it'll go straight to the "round file".
LM
Summer Storms
Mr Van Wau Wau
> Mr Van Wau Wau <whitelio...@yahoo.com> made an infinite number of
a) I do NOT own a car 2) I can not buy stamps at the local store so I
have to take a ten dollar taxi one way or 20 dollars round trip to buy
stamps, c) I only have a cell phone and can afford local service and
dont dare to try a long distance phona call unless its absolutly
neccessary for in case it's too expensive. I may be able once in a
great while( try hardly ever) get a ride. I can get cheaper
transportation but it is too much trouble for just to buy stamps in a
trip. I haqve to get up at 5 am, walk an half hour at dawn to get to
the Bus, ride the bus for about 20 minutes, get off the bus and buy
stamps then wait 6 hours for the bus to get back,ride for twenty
minutes, then walk 20 minutes home. If that is simple to get stamps
then you are a better man than me.I live only on my disability
payments and need foodstamps and subsidized rent to live on my own.
There are many people in my situation and the Internet is the only
voice they have. I hope I have Enlighten you because I hope you
responded out of ignorance, not out of malice. Remember, to put
yourself in another shoes before you make judgements
signed
David"MR Van Wau Wau"Guillot
donald tees
upright grand I rebuilt, but cannot play a damn) and do like both
ragtime and blues piano.
Donald
Larisa
>
> Got an URL? I'd like to hear some. I am a piano lover (I have a 1904
> upright grand I rebuilt, but cannot play a damn) and do like both
> ragtime and blues piano.
>
> Donald
Sure; www.larisamigachyov.com or www.cdbaby.com/migachyov . Hope you
like it!
LM
donald tees
them in the morning. At the moment, my roomy is playing fiddle, and I
do not like to put on recordings when someone is playing.
Here is the only thing I have recorded ... I asked for a sound test to
see if the software worked. Not me playing ... my roomy.
www.donald-tees/test/takeone.wav
Not sure if it will work, as I just placed it there. Note that it is
still a wav file, so rather large(30 meg), but it should play OK if you
have a good line.
Donald
donald tees
> Larisa wrote:
> sorry, mucked up the URL. Should be
> www.donald-tees.ca/test/takeone.wav
>
> Donald
>
>
Ree
Here's us for instance!
http://cdbaby.com/cd/canadiancelticchoir2
Our Christmas CD is on there as well!
Ree.
Ree
Sorry, thought you meant in general Donald. Didn't notice you specified
ragtime.
Ree.
Nohbody
number of monkeys bang out the following:
> Uh, Dan? I wrote the original post on this thread. I sincerely hope that
> you aren't accusing either me, or the BBC (which I quoted) of being
> "kooks". And the petition to which I linked certainly isn't written in
> "kook-ese".
No, I wasn't trying to imply that you or the petition were kookish; my
apologies if I didn't communicate that clearly. My references to
kookism were in regards to personal experience. I know that I've seen
messages sent to me, as an administrator on a web board, that looked
like they belonged in alt.usenet.kooks, while trying to get me and/or
the other board admins to do something. Even if what they want was
reasonable, ranting and raving isn't the way to get it done.
I'd be rather surprised if someone like a congresscritter didn't attract
a far greater amount of people with questionable contact with reality,
if for no other reason than that congressperson generally "belongs" to
more people than the 5K members of the board in question, and someone in
the legislature is a weeeeeeee little bit more important than an online
Wing Commander (as in the space sim game series) fandom web board.
> And I actually have seen petitions do some good, on various issues.
Were they online petitions, or were they someone going around and
collecting signatures the old way, with shoe rubber being worn down? In
my original comment in this thread, I specified online petitions for a
reason. While an online petition or two may have had an effect (if not
necessarily the intended one), you can find, with a few minutes of
browsing petitiononline.com or whatnot, a metric butt-tonne of ones that
go nowhere (including one that I wish was going to go somewhere, a
petition to get the lifetime ban from MLB lifted on "Shoeless" Joe
Jackson, so he can take the Baseball Hall of Fame spot he deserves).
> They've certainly managed to get the attention of *my* representatives a
> time or two. And remember, that many times the final petition is *NOT*
> sent via e-mail, but rather is printed out, with the names of all who
> signed it online attached, and mailed, on paper, to the Congresscritters
> in question.
>
> Also, since when does signing a petition of this type preclude one from
> also sending a personal letter?
It doesn't, but given how mass communications are given, at best, a
passing glance (if not a free one-way trip to the roundfile), it seems
to me that one could take even those few minutes to sign the petition
and put them towards something with a reasonable chance of influencing
someone in a position of power.
The TheatrElf
news:1176958349.2...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
Not directly. Have you ever worked in a representative's office?
Sure, THEY won't actually read it. Their aides, interns and pages
have to sort through everything - after all, there will be faxes
they NEED in with all the others. They will sort them into piles
as they dig through everything, then they WILL count everything,
and they will keep representative copies, and will also check the
names against their databases to make sure that they don't ignore
something from A Big Donor.
And when the CongressCritter walks through his door, he will get
a list of what has come in.
CongressCritters can't afford to ignore massive numbers of faxes
if they intend to remain CongressCritters.
--
Xjahn
The TheatrElf
http://camera-ephemera.blogspot.com/
The whole world's mad ...
save thee and me ...
and I'm not sure about thee ...
or me ...
donald tees
Donald
Richard Fallstrom
<xj...@netscape.net> wrote:
Mine even reads my e-mails despite not being a Big Contributor (Might
have to do with having met his mom one day at the bank).
Rick (sometimes is a GentleRF and sometimes is not)
Frank McCoy
wrote:
>On 18 Apr 2007 12:28:17 -0700, Larisa <purple...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Instead of sending an Internet petition - which will do nothing
>>whatsoever - petition your favorite artist/copyright holder to waive
>>their royalties for Internet radio play. I think most will agree -
>>it's free advertising for them, and they don't particularly want
>>Internet radio to go out of business.
>
>The artists may well waive royalties; the RIAA companies definitely
>won't, as they're the force behind this whole thing.
>
>Perhaps the same fee structure should be applied to over-the-air
>broadcasts. (this of course would mean the end of music on the radio,
>period.)
>
>So much per song per listener??? That's remarkably shortsighted even
>for the RIAA.
Well, methinks their aim isn't really to get paid; but to actually shut
down the whole music-by-net business.
I can't believe they really expect to make money off this.
Where their logic really fails (as it has so many times in the past; so
why be surprised?) is in the thought that they'll make so much more
money if only this leak through the net gets stopped. Just like they
thought they'd make *so* much more money if it was illegal to tape first
music and then video, or record music yourself in *any* form or format.
Some people never learn.
It's been shown time after time, study after study, test after test, and
even by the open market that people buy *far more* music from the stores
if they can record the songs they like, in the order they like.
Yet the RIAA, has in the past even been in favor of shutting down *radio
stations* for not paying extortionate royalties; when without same
nobody would even know what songs to buy. Bloody idiots.
They're quite famou^Wnotorious for cutting off their own nose to spite
their face and killing the goose for it's eggs before they're laid.
Frank McCoy
>Ah - but this will work out very well for the self-represented artists
>out there. Like me. <grinning insufferably at the thought of myself
>as an "artist"> Let the RIAA handicap its musicians all it wants - I
>don't care. There are lots of musicians out there who record their
>own CD's and who are their own production companies. They will
>cheerfully waive royalties if it means keeping their radio station on
>the air. What will happen, I think, is that those musicians will be
>the only ones left on those Internet radio stations; and this may not
>altogether be a bad thing. Percentage-wise, they'll be getting much
>more exposure.
>
>I post on a ragtime Yahoo Group, and the guy who runs the ragtime
>radio station posts there too. When he first complained about the
>proposed fee increase, I wrote that I will waive my fee; and quite a
>few other musicians also chimed in - we all want to keep this radio
>station on the air.
I think the RIAA will *still* insist on royalties, even if not one song
played "over the air" is done by signatories to their contracts. After
all, they CLAIM to represent ALL musicians and song-writers; including
most-especially those not fond of their tactics; as they *do* have just
about every major record-producer under their collective thumbs, and
thus they claim at least indirectly every singer under contract.
I'd love to see them try to enforce that though.
I really expect they will.
Should be "interesting times".
Larisa
> In alt.callahans Larisa <purple_bov...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >Ah - but this will work out very well for the self-represented artists
> >out there. Like me. <grinning insufferably at the thought of myself
> >as an "artist"> Let the RIAA handicap its musicians all it wants - I
> >don't care. There are lots of musicians out there who record their
> >own CD's and who are their own production companies. They will
> >cheerfully waive royalties if it means keeping their radio station on
> >the air. What will happen, I think, is that those musicians will be
> >the only ones left on those Internet radio stations; and this may not
> >altogether be a bad thing. Percentage-wise, they'll be getting much
> >more exposure.
>
> >I post on a ragtime Yahoo Group, and the guy who runs the ragtime
> >radio station posts there too. When he first complained about the
> >proposed fee increase, I wrote that I will waive my fee; and quite a
> >few other musicians also chimed in - we all want to keep this radio
> >station on the air.
>
> I think the RIAA will *still* insist on royalties, even if not one song
> played "over the air" is done by signatories to their contracts. After
> all, they CLAIM to represent ALL musicians and song-writers; including
> most-especially those not fond of their tactics; as they *do* have just
> about every major record-producer under their collective thumbs, and
> thus they claim at least indirectly every singer under contract.
So the radio station pays me $X (and X is a really small number, btw)
- and then I "donate" $X to them. The RIAA can't stop me from making
a charitable donation, can it?
LM
Larisa
> In alt.callahans Denny Wheeler <den...@TANSTAAFL.zipcon.net.INVALID>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On 18 Apr 2007 12:28:17 -0700, Larisa <purple_bov...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>Instead of sending an Internet petition - which will do nothing
> >>whatsoever - petition your favorite artist/copyright holder to waive
> >>their royalties for Internet radio play. I think most will agree -
> >>it's free advertising for them, and they don't particularly want
> >>Internet radio to go out of business.
>
> >The artists may well waive royalties; the RIAA companies definitely
> >won't, as they're the force behind this whole thing.
>
> >Perhaps the same fee structure should be applied to over-the-air
> >broadcasts. (this of course would mean the end of music on the radio,
> >period.)
>
> >So much per song per listener??? That's remarkably shortsighted even
> >for the RIAA.
>
> Well, methinks their aim isn't really to get paid; but to actually shut
> down the whole music-by-net business.
>
> I can't believe they really expect to make money off this.
Oh, of course. I'm just saying that they won't succeed because the
times have changed. Before, they had a monopoly on music recordings,
and behaved accordingly. Now they don't have a monopoly anymore - but
they're still behaving as if they did, and we are still treating them
that way. I think it's time to stop.
I've already written to Pandora, informing them that I'm waiving my
royalties and that they're welcome to play my CD anytime. :)
LM
Larisa
Sure - but how much money is the RIAA putting into the
Congresscritter's pocket on this one? Probably more than I can. They
might not ignore letters from the public on other issues - but this
one, I think, will be ignored.
LM
Frank McCoy
wrote:
>Larisa wrote:
>> On Apr 18, 9:44 pm, The TheatrElf <theatr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> Nohbody <l...@my.reply-to.address> wrote innews:Z1zVh.27064$254....@bignews7.bellsouth.net:
>>>
>>>> The point of my original post in this thread was that internet
>>>> petitions AREN'T going to make your voice known. They do
>>>> little more than waste the time of you and other signees, the
>>>> person organizing the petition, and the intern or staffer that
>>>> handles e-mailings from constituents.
>>> BTW, the current system being used in regards to the internet
>>> radio licensing bill isn't using email. It creates a fax from
>>> the person filling in the info. The system "reads" your address
>>> and automatically sends a fax FROM YOU to your representatives.
>>>
>>> The fax has your name, address and telephone number. You can use
>>> a generated message, or create one entirely of your own
>>> composition.
>>
>> And it'll go straight to the "round file".
>>
>> LM
>>
>Not necessarily, and certainly not in every case.
Usually it just gets one more tick in a counter before being shitcanned.
"Senator? We had another 3,222 of those idiotic 'online petitions' that
somebody is spamming the net with come in this morning. Did you want to
look over the actual wording? We saved a copy, just in case. Not worth
the bother? I thought so; but didn't want to decide myself. Basically
they're just ranting about nothing. Oh yeah ... and don't forget that
meeting you have with the RIAA representative we have this afternoon
about their expected campaign contribution to your re-election
committee. Some thieves are trying to steal their hard-earned royalties
by introducing a bill coming up next week. You might want to look into
that matter."
;-{
Frank McCoy
>a) I do NOT own a car 2) I can not buy stamps at the local store so I
>have to take a ten dollar taxi one way or 20 dollars round trip to buy
>stamps, c)
Bull:
http://www.usps.com
You have a computer.
Use it.
Even if bedridden, if you have a printer you can write letters and put
postage on them from your bed without ever leaving the room.
If you don't (have a printer) then you can have the post-office SEND you
stamps, for no cost other than the price of the stamps themselves.
I presume you have *some* method of paying bills without taking a taxi.
Check, money-order, CC, Bank-account-number, or Paypal all work. Even
cash will do, in a pinch.
Geesh.
Talk about LAME excuses!
Mr Van Wau Wau
> In alt.callahans Mr Van Wau Wau <whitelio...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >a) I do NOT own a car 2) I can not buy stamps at the local store so I
> >have to take a ten dollar taxi one way or 20 dollars round trip to buy
> >stamps, c)
>
> Bull:http://www.usps.com
> You have a computer.
> Use it.
>
> Even if bedridden, if you have a printer you can write letters and put
> postage on them from your bed without ever leaving the room.
> If you don't (have a printer) then you can have the post-office SEND you
> stamps, for no cost other than the price of the stamps themselves.
>
> I presume you have *some* method of paying bills without taking a taxi.
> Check, money-order, CC, Bank-account-number, or Paypal all work. Even
> cash will do, in a pinch.
>
> Geesh.
> Talk about LAME excuses!
> ;-{
signed
david Guillot
Richard Fallstrom
<mcc...@millcomm.com> wrote:
Frank:
Being as I live in an apartment building with a number of variously
mobility impaired, I take your respondings to Mr Van Wau Wau as highly
insensitive at best. My dad spent his last few months that way.
Personally, I would visit someone before pontificating over that
person's situation lest I be operating from a lack of data. The Native
americans had a phrase, "Don't judge someone unless you walk a mile in
his moccasins." I don't presume to know his circumstances as well as
you seem to be doing, but if he is having difficulties he doesn't wish
to talk about or that others aren't accepting of, I am okay with him as
he is. If I lived nearby, I would attempt to help out of my fixed
income resources instead of spouting, "You should do this, or you
should do that."
Summer Storms
They were indeed online petitions.
>
>> They've certainly managed to get the attention of *my* representatives a
>> time or two. And remember, that many times the final petition is *NOT*
>> sent via e-mail, but rather is printed out, with the names of all who
>> signed it online attached, and mailed, on paper, to the Congresscritters
>> in question.
>>
>> Also, since when does signing a petition of this type preclude one from
>> also sending a personal letter?
>
> It doesn't, but given how mass communications are given, at best, a
> passing glance (if not a free one-way trip to the roundfile), it seems
> to me that one could take even those few minutes to sign the petition
> and put them towards something with a reasonable chance of influencing
> someone in a position of power.
I don't know about your Congresscritter, but most of them don't really
have the time to read through thousands of individual letters, Dan.
donald tees
> On Apr 19, 11:16 am, Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com> wrote:
>> In alt.callahans Mr Van Wau Wau <whitelio...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> a) I do NOT own a car 2) I can not buy stamps at the local store so I
>>> have to take a ten dollar taxi one way or 20 dollars round trip to buy
>>> stamps, c)
>> Bull:http://www.usps.com
>> You have a computer.
>> Use it.
>>
>> Even if bedridden, if you have a printer you can write letters and put
>> postage on them from your bed without ever leaving the room.
>> If you don't (have a printer) then you can have the post-office SEND you
>> stamps, for no cost other than the price of the stamps themselves.
>>
>> I presume you have *some* method of paying bills without taking a taxi.
>> Check, money-order, CC, Bank-account-number, or Paypal all work. Even
>> cash will do, in a pinch.
The nearest post office to me is also a half hour walk each way. I
seldom use the mail, it is too much work. It is in the opposite
direction from my bank, so though I walk to the bank once a week to put
in my pay check, the mail trip is extra.
In summer, I might, as I would ride my bike. In winter, not a chance.
Donald
Summer Storms
Exactly!
Summer Storms
Congressional pocket. Maybe I'm just not cynical enough or something,
but if EVERY Congressional representative ignored EVERY interest that
had ever paid off ANYONE, then NOTHING would ever get done. The fact
that things still do tells me that not ALL of them are being paid off.
Frank McCoy
Yebbut:
They STILL have to pay the RIAA big bucks, just because they played YOUR
song. Heck, just by playing even ONE song, by you, with your
permission, and you ain't even signed up with RIAA, the Association
claims they have to be paid their full fee *for the entire year*, along
with royalties for YOUR song, royalties (since you aren't a signatory
with the RIAA) that you'll never get!
At least that's how *I* read the court ruling; and I'm sure the RIAA
does too.
;-{
Bean Counter
You *had* to give the CD Baby link, didn't you, Larisa?! Now I'm not only
on tenterhooks waiting for A Heap Of Rags, but also for Trashcan Joe . . .
Ah well, a BOYC?
--
Dwy ddim yn cwyno; mae neb yn gwrando!
Frank McCoy
If your brother runs your finances"
A. Have HIM bring you stamps.
B. Have HIM pay for postage.
C. If he's so inconsiderate as to deny you mere postage, then you
should yell and scream for a better caretaker of YOUR money!
At the least, he could authorize you getting your own through usps.com.
Even my mother, who *is* bedridden, and has *my* brother running her
finances, because SHE is unable to any more, STILL writes letters to the
newspapers, congressmen, and other people every week. She's 93, and
unable to get to post-office, store, or *anyplace* without my brother
taking her. If *she* can get postage, why can't you? She also is
living on *minimum* Social Security; which doesn't cover the rent.
Hell, if nothing else, ASK for stamps, envelopes, and paper the next
time your Social Worker comes by, if you're so poor you have no money of
your own. If you're THAT poor, they're obligated to supply you with the
basics. Paper, envelopes and stamps ARE basic necessities in our world.
Excuses like having to take a taxi and paying $20 for fare to get stamps
is just a bloody EXCUSE; when $.39 and a message to usps.com will get
you a stamp within days ... I don't care WHERE you live; as long as its
in the USA.
Sorry, but you get NO sympathy from me, if you don't try.
It sounds like you just don't want to go to the BOTHER of writing a real
letter; which is your privilege.
Just don't saying it costs you $20 to get a 39-cent-stamp; because I
know better. I've pointed out at least three ways to get postage at
normal prices without ever leaving the vicinity of your computer.
Hell, for a fourth way: You get groceries SOMEHOW, don't you?
Ask whoever or whatever service that brings them in to include a book of
stamps in your next order. Just about all grocery-suppliers also have
stamps on hand, just for people like you.
Stop making silly excuses, and either TRY, or decide that you don't want
to really write after all ... You just want to bitch about not being
able to. This goes over really CRAPPY with people with friends or
relatives like my mother, who writes about two or three letters a week
from her bed.
Hell, I'll remove *ALL* cost.
Send *ME* an email copy of a letter written personally by you, and *I
PERSONALLY* will put it in my own envelope, stamp it, and send it out
for you FREE OF COST! Just include a return-address, and I'll print it,
the envelope, and attach a stamp. It'll go out within 24 hours.
(Geesh, as if 42 cents, for stamp, envelope, and paper is going to break
me.)
So ... NOW what's your excuse?
Waiting ....
Frank McCoy
Like I said:
http://www.usps.com
You don't have to leave your house.
You GET mail don't you?
The post-office is used to supplying mail, stamps, letters, envelopes,
paper, and all similar materials to shut-ins. Has done so for over a
century. It's far easier nowadays for anybody with internet access.
Just ASK.
I call laziness.
Frank McCoy
Sorry, but my mother is likely more shut-in than any of those you name.
SHE doesn't let that stop her from writing letters.
The US Postal Service is in the business of supplying writing needs to
shut-ins. Why doesn't somebody ASK for help, if people want to write
and cannot get supplies?
If they cannot ask personally, then somebody else should.
Still, I call complete BULLSHIT! on anybody with a computer and more
than a dollar in their bank-account not being ABLE to get stamps.
PURE HORSE CRAP!!!
You don't need to leave the house, you don't need to leave your chair,
you don't have to even get out of bed.
Ask your Social-Worker, ask your financial dealer, ask your
Grocery-supplier, ask a friend, ask your pastor, use the URL:
http://www.usps.com, hell, ASK ME, and I'll SEND you stamps!
Just email me with an explanation of why you cannot pay, and I'll
snail-mail you *two* pre-stamped letter-sized envelopes along with
*four* sheets of writing-paper ... One for your letter, and one to reply
... if you wish. Include your return-address. If enough people ask,
I'll start a charity for just this purpose. OK?
No. Pure bullshit.
Especially when said person claims to be physically ABLE to climb into a
TAXI and take it for a $10 one-way journey (or $20 round-trip) and have
the money to do that; but thinks it's too expensive. Well, $20 *is* too
expensive, when 39 CENTS will get you the same thing without ever
leaving your computer.
The Postal Service deals with shut-ins all the time.
Geesh.
Matthew T. Russotto
Denny Wheeler <den...@zipcon.netREMOVETHIS> wrote:
>On 18 Apr 2007 12:28:17 -0700, Larisa <purple...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Instead of sending an Internet petition - which will do nothing
>>whatsoever - petition your favorite artist/copyright holder to waive
>>their royalties for Internet radio play. I think most will agree -
>>it's free advertising for them, and they don't particularly want
>>Internet radio to go out of business.
>
>The artists may well waive royalties; the RIAA companies definitely
>won't, as they're the force behind this whole thing.
>
>Perhaps the same fee structure should be applied to over-the-air
>broadcasts. (this of course would mean the end of music on the radio,
>period.)
>
>So much per song per listener??? That's remarkably shortsighted even
>for the RIAA.
Webcasters: "But we can't pay those fees! We'll have to go out of
business entirely!"
RIAA: "Those terms are accepted."
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
Matthew T. Russotto
Larisa <purple...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>So the radio station pays me $X (and X is a really small number, btw)
>- and then I "donate" $X to them. The RIAA can't stop me from making
>a charitable donation, can it?
Sorry, that's payola and is legal only when they do it.
donald tees
I very much doubt the US postal service will deliver to Kitchener,
Ontario, Canada.
Even if they did, I'd have to get a bus 100 miles to the nearest border
to mail the letter.
Donald
The TheatrElf
news:1176995351.9...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
>> CongressCritters can't afford to ignore massive numbers of
>> faxes if they intend to remain CongressCritters.
>
> Sure - but how much money is the RIAA putting into the
> Congresscritter's pocket on this one? Probably more than I
> can. They might not ignore letters from the public on other
> issues - but this one, I think, will be ignored.
WE may not win, but we won't be ignored. But if you stay silent,
you can't be heard. As always, it's up to the individual.
--
Xjahn
The TheatrElf
http://camera-ephemera.blogspot.com/
Wouldn't it be wonderful if everyone renounced violence forever?
I could then conquer the whole stupid planet with just a butter
knife.
Frank McCoy
wrote:
>In article <k2pd239e8qqrr9vm1...@4ax.com>,
>Denny Wheeler <den...@zipcon.netREMOVETHIS> wrote:
>>On 18 Apr 2007 12:28:17 -0700, Larisa <purple...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Instead of sending an Internet petition - which will do nothing
>>>whatsoever - petition your favorite artist/copyright holder to waive
>>>their royalties for Internet radio play. I think most will agree -
>>>it's free advertising for them, and they don't particularly want
>>>Internet radio to go out of business.
>>
>>The artists may well waive royalties; the RIAA companies definitely
>>won't, as they're the force behind this whole thing.
>>
>>Perhaps the same fee structure should be applied to over-the-air
>>broadcasts. (this of course would mean the end of music on the radio,
>>period.)
>>
>>So much per song per listener??? That's remarkably shortsighted even
>>for the RIAA.
>
>Webcasters: "But we can't pay those fees! We'll have to go out of
>business entirely!"
>
>RIAA: "Those terms are accepted."
Yep. ;-{
The TheatrElf
news:341f23tsoomk5uavv...@4ax.com:
>
>>Not necessarily, and certainly not in every case.
>
> Usually it just gets one more tick in a counter before being
> shitcanned.
>
And your attitude is exactly what the RIAA is counting. You are
supporting them.
--
Xjahn
The TheatrElf
http://camera-ephemera.blogspot.com/
As of next week, passwords will be entered in Morse code.
The TheatrElf
>>
>>Rick (sometimes is a GentleRF and sometimes is not)
>
> Sorry, but my mother is likely more shut-in than any of those
> you name. SHE doesn't let that stop her from writing letters.
Good for her. But why are you being such a fucking asshole?
What's the point? Just whose side do you think you're own, and
whose agenda do you think you're serving by treating everyone
around you like shit?
--
Xjahn
The TheatrElf
http://camera-ephemera.blogspot.com/
As long as the answer is right, who cares if the question is
wrong?
Summer Storms
Point taken, but the Canadian post will deliver stamps to you if you
order them and also will pick up outgoing mail from your house when they
deliver to you, won't they?
Frank McCoy
>Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com> wrote in
>news:341f23tsoomk5uavv...@4ax.com:
>
>>
>>>Not necessarily, and certainly not in every case.
>>
>> Usually it just gets one more tick in a counter before being
>> shitcanned.
>>
>And your attitude is exactly what the RIAA is counting. You are
>supporting them.
Huh?
I'm just saying that if you don't like the RIAA's crappy methods, you
should use far more effective ways of making your dislike known that
merely "signing" an online petition.
Email, fax, REAL letters, phone-calls, and even genuine foot-rubber
petitions all have a lot better results for comparable effort.
Not saying you shouldn't sign the petition.
Hell, go ahead. I might too!
It's just if you *really* want to make a difference in the fight, do
something *else* as well. Something that might take more than just a
click of a mouse, "signing" your name to an online document.
Summer Storms
up in my mind. It's a curiosity thing.)
Frank McCoy
>Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com> wrote in
>news:04gf239t9fegdg0pl...@4ax.com:
>
>>>
>>>Rick (sometimes is a GentleRF and sometimes is not)
>>
>> Sorry, but my mother is likely more shut-in than any of those
>> you name. SHE doesn't let that stop her from writing letters.
>
>Good for her. But why are you being such a fucking asshole?
>What's the point? Just whose side do you think you're own, and
>whose agenda do you think you're serving by treating everyone
>around you like shit?
I'm just pointing out the bullshit when people say they *can't* write
letters because they can't get postage!
Hell, I've offered to send them postage myself; so that bullshit fails.
I'll even send international postage from the US or Canada, if
necessary. Far harder for ME to do than somebody living there.
It's a bullshit excuse; and I'm calling bullshit.
Not WANTING to write, that's something else: A personal decision.
Not being able to get postage is bullshit.
I'd also stop my rant if somebody *did* find it necessary to send me
email asking for postage since they didn't think they could get any by
any other method. I check my email almost every hour.
I just say those complaining they cannot get *postage* are not trying.
There's no penalty for such laziness except being called on it.
Hell, if I found *anybody* in ten miles of me that was unable to write
letters the wanted to, purely because they couldn't get the needed
postage, I'd get it (postage, stamps, envelopes, etc.) to them myself.
I don't go out doing this all the time, because I personally don't
believe any such person of the several million or so inhabitants around
my home, exists within 100 miles of here ... especially not any person
having access to the web and these newsgroups in particular.
If that's "treating people like shit"; then so be it.
I calls bullshit when I sees it.
Sorry if that offends people.
Larisa
Wait, wait, wait - how did I become a member of the RIAA? Something
sounds pretty fishy about that - they can't compel me to join against
my will, can they? And how do they get royalties that I am supposed
to be getting by law?
LM
Larisa
> donald tees wrote:
> > Larisa wrote:
> >> <den...@TANSTAAFL.zipcon.net.INVALID> wrote:
> >>> On 18 Apr 2007 12:28:17 -0700, Larisa <purple_bov...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> Instead of sending an Internet petition - which will do nothing
> >>>> whatsoever - petition your favorite artist/copyright holder to waive
> >>>> their royalties for Internet radio play. I think most will agree -
> >>>> it's free advertising for them, and they don't particularly want
> >>>> Internet radio to go out of business.
> >>> The artists may well waive royalties; the RIAA companies definitely
> >>> won't, as they're the force behind this whole thing.
>
> >> out there. Like me. <grinning insufferably at the thought of myself
> >> as an "artist"> Let the RIAA handicap its musicians all it wants - I
> >> don't care. There are lots of musicians out there who record their
> >> own CD's and who are their own production companies. They will
> >> cheerfully waive royalties if it means keeping their radio station on
> >> the air. What will happen, I think, is that those musicians will be
> >> the only ones left on those Internet radio stations; and this may not
> >> altogether be a bad thing. Percentage-wise, they'll be getting much
> >> more exposure.
>
> >> I post on a ragtime Yahoo Group, and the guy who runs the ragtime
> >> radio station posts there too. When he first complained about the
> >> proposed fee increase, I wrote that I will waive my fee; and quite a
> >> few other musicians also chimed in - we all want to keep this radio
> >> station on the air.
>
> >>> broadcasts. (this of course would mean the end of music on the radio,
> >>> period.)
>
> >> lead to a significant power shift. If they want to shoot themselves
> >> in the foot this way - let them. I, personally, am rather sick of all
> >> this RIAA nonsense.
>
> >> The RIAA is becoming increasingly irrelevant. Heck, I'm a clueless
> >> amateur and I produced a salable ragtime piano CD on my first try, in
> >> my own living room, with about $500 worth of equipment. Every single
> >> ragtime musician I know records their own CD and basically is their
> >> own record label; big record labels aren't so interested in ragtime.
> >> Services like CDBaby can bring these musicians directly to a worldwide
> >> audience without some record label taking the lion's share of the
> >> profits. Many of the CD's I own were recorded and produced with no
> >> RIAA intervention - and they sound professional.
>
> >> Look on CDBaby sometime, and see just how much cool stuff there is out
> >> there. I was rather flabbergasted, myself. If all of those musicians
> >> were to put their mind to it, they could save Internet radio. And if
> >> you send *them* this petition of yours, it just might have the desired
> >> effect.
>
> >> LM
>
> > Got an URL? I'd like to hear some. I am a piano lover (I have a 1904
> > upright grand I rebuilt, but cannot play a damn) and do like both
> > ragtime and blues piano.
>
> > Donald
>
>
> http://cdbaby.com/cd/canadiancelticchoir2
>
> Our Christmas CD is on there as well!
Wow, that's gorgeous!
LM
Larisa
Exactly. The RIAA is counting on the fact that everyone will just
sign those useless online petitions and not do anything else.
I want to make a difference; so I'm making my CD available cost-free
to any online radio station and talking to other musicians about it.
I think that'll do far more good than spamming politicians.
LM
Larisa
> Larisa <purple_bov...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:1176995351.9...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> CongressCritters can't afford to ignore massive numbers of
> >> faxes if they intend to remain CongressCritters.
>
> > Sure - but how much money is the RIAA putting into the
> > Congresscritter's pocket on this one? Probably more than I
> > can. They might not ignore letters from the public on other
> > issues - but this one, I think, will be ignored.
>
> WE may not win, but we won't be ignored. But if you stay silent,
> you can't be heard. As always, it's up to the individual.
Sure - though I think that my methods are far more effective. Even if
you can't make music or record your own CD, if you know amateur
musicians, talk to them about it. Make them mobilize against the
RIAA's tactics. Talk to IP lawyers about it and ask them how this
restriction can be gotten around. If the IP lawyer is clever enough,
they'll think of a way to reduce the power of the RIAA while saving
Internet radio - using this new law. That will do something. Sending
spam to politicians does nothing.
Incidentally, one way that one could, unequivocally, get around any
RIAA restriction out there is to release one's recording into the
public domain. If you're the copyright holder, you can do that at any
point. The Creative Commons website has instructions for how to do
that.
LM
Summer Storms
So any attempt at contacting one's representatives once they are in
office is "spam"? Nice view of government you've got there...
Larisa
wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 22:22:37 -0700, Larisa wrote:
> > On Apr 19, 1:00 am, donald tees <don...@execulink.com> wrote:
>
> >> Got an URL? I'd like to hear some. I am a piano lover (I have a 1904
> >> upright grand I rebuilt, but cannot play a damn) and do like both
> >> ragtime and blues piano.
>
> >> Donald
>
> > like it!
>
> > LM
>
> You *had* to give the CD Baby link, didn't you, Larisa?! Now I'm not only
> on tenterhooks waiting for A Heap Of Rags, but also for Trashcan Joe . . .
>
> Ah well, a BOYC?
Thanks! May I get your next one?
Oh - and I hope you like the CD!
LM
donald tees
Not a chance in hell. They use to, but now they are mandated by law to
at least break even, preferably make a profit.
I get mail monday to thursday. Friday, the mailman quits early, and
never gets to my house. Illegal of course, but then there is a postal
union. I never mail bills. I go to the bank and pay them by interact.
I even send my invoices/timesheets by Email, though I do receive my
paycheques by mail. That's largely because the fellow I work for lives
in Illinois.
I think this thread, though, amply illustrates some of the problems here
in Usenet. Nearly every flame I have read in the last few days was
based on someone insisting that assumptions based on the USA mainland
are applicable to every other place in the world. Even Alaska, which has
far more in common with Norther Ontario than with Miami. If one
protests, then they are accused of all sorts of things, but usually
starting with ignorance at best and stupidity at worst.
Language varies. Custom varies. Even courtesy varies. Personally, I
think the differences far more profound by socio-economic factors and
profession than by location, but you cannot presume *anything* in an
international newsgroup.
Donald
Frank McCoy
"Collective Agreements"
That's what this whole thing is about.
You may not be a member of the RIAA; but they still claim to represent
you. They also have agreements with about all of the major
record-producers that (supposedly) you become party to when you agree to
have them (the record companies) make a record for you, even if they
don't distribute or promote it for you. Thus, at least indirectly, they
claim you're part of their organization and they're "protecting your
interests", even if you've never agreed to becoming a member and
personally hate their collective guts.
Yes, you CAN make and produce CDs without tying up with major producers;
but even so RIAA *claims* to represent your interests as, "The only
organization looking out for ALL musicians, song-writers, and singers".
Like the union at a big company: You belong, whether you want to or not.
Frank McCoy
>Sure - though I think that my methods are far more effective. Even if
>you can't make music or record your own CD, if you know amateur
>musicians, talk to them about it. Make them mobilize against the
>RIAA's tactics.
Probably far better than talking to congresscritters.
The problem is: The RIAA top-brass has already pushed this through their
organization in spite of heavy criticism from the ranks. ;-{
But fighting from within is far better (to my notion) than fighting from
without. If enough musicians, songwriters, and singers yell and scream
about *lost revenue* because of this idiotic scam, then perhaps those at
the top might even listen. Might. You have to show the people who
count what a difference it will make to them.
Sometimes that's harder than herding cats.
Frank McCoy
AFAIK and IANAL, that's about the only way I can see that would work.
If *enough* people put public-domain stuff out there, and the stations
*only* played PD stuff, it might actually break the RIAA in this matter.
Damned hard on the people trying to make a living from singing though.
Larisa
Wait, wait, wait - but I did NOT have them make the record for me. I
made it myself. In my living room, on my own piano, with equipment I
purchased myself. I didn't even go to a recording studio - I was my
own recording engineer on this one. Am I still automatically a
member of the RIAA now that I am a "recording artist", even if the
recording was done without any involvement from them?
LM
donald tees
Perhaps thinking that everyone on Usenet is within 10 or 100 miles of
you is a problem. I thought there were remote areas even within the
United States, but perhaps I am mistaken.
I presume you have a car, maybe even more than one. Lots of people do
not. You probably have a healthy body too. Lots of people do not. If
you think everyone in the world is in your position, you are wrong.
I notice that the thread has been re-labeled "Petitioning Congress" so
you may have a small point. But then again, most of us have
governments, to deal with, so the discussion is germaine. Or are you
one of those that insist that only United States citizens are welcome?
Donald
Donald
Frank McCoy
wrote:
Um ... Just wondering ....
Which view of government is *not* nasty?
I personally liked Will Rogers' views on the critter.
Summer Storms
at least *some* of my elected representatives are disposed to actually
listening to the concerns of their constituents...
Larisa
Well, sure, and normally I'd be with you on this one - but this thread
is about US law, and petitioning the US Congress. I think it's fair
to assume that those interested in petitioning the US Congress will be
American citizens - and thus that such assumptions will apply to
them.
LM
donald tees
>
> Well, sure, and normally I'd be with you on this one - but this thread
> is about US law, and petitioning the US Congress. I think it's fair
> to assume that those interested in petitioning the US Congress will be
> American citizens - and thus that such assumptions will apply to
> them.
>
Yes, that is true. You do know, though, that the US congress is pushing
hard to force every country in the world to join into that "the
recording companies own music" crap. The same battles are being fought
all over the world. The WIPO is international.
Donald
Frank McCoy
That's what *they* claim; and also claim an interest in any songs you
make that are played in public, because (they say) that such money (now
collected as royalties for *any* copyrighted songs played on public
airwaves) wouldn't even come to you, if they weren't there collecting it
for you. (That you never actually get a dime because you *don't pay
dues to their organization, is never considered relevant.)
D.J.
<summerbyt...@gRANTmailDOT.com> wrote:
]So any attempt at contacting one's representatives once they are in
Saying that several methods have much better results in being heard
than one way that wont work isn't saying that.
D.J.
--
http://www.linuxgazette.net/ Linux Gazette
http://crestar.drivein-jim.net/testy/ Apr 8, 2007 1E AD&D blog
http://www.drivein-jim.net/ March 2, 2007: Drive-In movie theatres
http://poetry.drivein-jim.net/ poetry blog Mar 21, 2007
Frank McCoy
Oh, some really ARE. After all, they have to get reelected, don't they?
It isn't *all* parties and junkets and free trips from lobbyists.
Sometimes a representative actually has to work on his/her reelection
campaign!
(Sorry; I'm feeing cynical right at the moment ... Especially about
politics in general.)
D.J.
<don...@execulink.com> wrote:
]Perhaps thinking that everyone on Usenet is within 10 or 100 miles of
]United States, but perhaps I am mistaken.
One of the Native American reservations on the edge of the Grand
Canyon gets everything sent to them on the last part of the journey
by pack mule. Washing machines, refrigerators, clothes, food, etc.
It takes 1-2 days per trip. Most of the folks involved in doing this
are Native Americans.
Indiana Joe
Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com> wrote:
> AFAIK and IANAL, that's about the only way I can see that would work.
> If *enough* people put public-domain stuff out there, and the stations
> *only* played PD stuff, it might actually break the RIAA in this matter.
>
> Damned hard on the people trying to make a living from singing though.
Public domain is not the only option. There are a number of licenses
that let the artist control what freedoms they allow. Check out
http://creativecommons.org/ for more information.
--
Joe Claffey | "In the end, everything is a gag."
india...@comcast.net | - Charlie Chaplin
Frank McCoy
Sorry. My only argument was against the complaint that somebody (you?)
couldn't get *postage* to mail a letter. In Canada, The Ukraine, USA,
or Three miles from the antarctic pole, I claim that's bullshit if
you're close enough to civilization to even GET mail at all, let alone
be near enough to have direct Internet access.
Perhaps some poor soul in an Island out in the Pacific might have to
wait weeks or even months for a mail-boat to arrive; but he/she can
*still* get postage; and without taking said boat all the way to
Papeete.
The argument started with the claim it would cost $20 (*US!!!*) to go
get a postage-stamp. That's pure bull-crap. If you have means to get
*groceries* let alone Internet Access, then you have access to get
*postage* at close to Post Office Prices ... without ever leaving home
or your own room, for that matter.
Claiming it will take lots of time to deliver or receive mail is
something else. Claiming difficulty writing is something else.
Claiming it's the USA and Congress here won't listen to you is something
else. Claiming you don't like or even *want* to write letters is
something else.
Claiming you can't get a stamp without spending BIG MONEY is bull-crap.
If anything, you can wait until next week. It won't make a shit bit of
difference to something delivered snail-mail.
I call bull-crap when I see it.
If that offends people, then sorry.
Why not give the REAL reason you don't want to send a letter instead of
making up excuses that nobody with any knowledge of modern mail will
believe? Shit, it's not as if anybody would condemn you for not wanting
to send snail-mail, whatever the real reason was. Making up imaginary
reasons why you *can't* send mail though ....
Well ... OK ... Unless you're some kind of criminal or super-spy hiding
out in the hinterland somewhere; and don't DARE send real mail for fear
of having it traced. (Geesh, talk about conspiracy theories ....)
Why not just 'fess up, and say it's too much bother?
Like I said, if you *REALLY* cannot get or afford postage, I'll get it
to you somehow. Just give me an address by email. You admitted the
Canadian Post got to you at least two or three times a week, so ....
I'm sure the US Post Office will sell me International Postage that the
Canadian Post Office will accept. If not, I'll just order it from
Canada itself and pay with International Money Orders or (more likely)
Credit Card.
If *I* can do it for you, why can't you?
"I can't get postage," just doesn't cut it.
Lessee now ... Canada Post:
http://www.canadapost.ca/segment-e.asp
Buy stamps on-line:
http://www.shopcanadapost.ca
TEN, pre-stamped #10 envelopes, for only $6.00 (Canadian).
Stamps only (What you said you couldn't get):
http://www.shopcanadapost.ca/index.cfm?app=cart&a=previewpage&ppreview=1&categoryID=5
"Send letters and documents within Canada, to the USA and around the
world. Never run out of postage with convenient rolls of stamps!"
Note, if you go to the checkout:
FREE delivery on all standard orders.
So ... Since you CLAIM it will cost you $20 to get even one stamp, how's
about you send me your address by email, and I'll have the Canadian Post
send you TEN pre-stamped floral envelopes, good both in USA and Canada,
with my blessing?
What could be more generous than that: Seeing as you *claim* it's
impossible for you to get postage for even one letter for less than
$20.00? ($6.00 Canadian on my Credit-Card, even when living
month-to-month on only Social Security can come out of my "luxuries"
budget. Everybody needs something extra.)
Huh?
PUOSU.
So ... Is exposing your excuse as being an excuse being nasty to you?
Larisa
They can claim whatever they like - but I never authorized them to
collect royalties on my behalf, nor have I ever signed any paperwork
to that effect. They can say that they represent my interests in a
metaphorical sense - in the way of "We speak for the common man!"
rhetoric. But they can't say they represent my interests in a legal
sense unless I have authorized them to do so by joining their
organization. Nor can they collect royalties on my behalf - that
would be a violation of my copyright, and I would sue them for it. (I
would, too - just give me 2 more years...)
Nor are they claiming any such thing, incidentally - all they're
saying is that by enforcing the rights of their members, they are
making the world better for all musicians, or some nonsense like
that. They know that they can't enforce someone else's copyright
without their consent.
LM
LM
Frank McCoy
Well ... Yeah. But they CAN charge outrageous fees for playing any
copyrighted material as a "yearly fee" that isn't for any specific
record like yours. THOSE get charged an extra per-use fee, as I recall.
Even if the company tries scrupulously to only use material like yours,
all it takes is *one* accidental partial clip with copyrighted material
playing in the background, and they can find a way to charge the full
annual fee. They don't *need* your material to bring the station down.
The stations know this.
Besides, how much of the Public is going to listen in, if they never
EVER hear the current popular tunes played on Radio and TV?
The general attitude will be, "Who wants to listen to *this* crap?" if
all they hear is unfamiliar tunes by unknown artists. Oh yeah, *some*
people *will* listen in. But I doubt enough for the streamers to make a
profit. Hell, most are close to the edge right now. ;-{
Frank McCoy
>On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 17:43:54 -0400, donald tees
><don...@execulink.com> wrote:
>]Perhaps thinking that everyone on Usenet is within 10 or 100 miles of
>]you is a problem. I thought there were remote areas even within the
>]United States, but perhaps I am mistaken.
>
>One of the Native American reservations on the edge of the Grand
>Canyon gets everything sent to them on the last part of the journey
>by pack mule. Washing machines, refrigerators, clothes, food, etc.
>It takes 1-2 days per trip. Most of the folks involved in doing this
>are Native Americans.
>
But even *they* get mail.
Give me an address, and I'll see that anybody there *needing* it gets
postage that can be mailed by those delivering, on the return-trip.
And ... It won't cost me twenty fucking dollars to get it there!
(Pardon my language; but ....)
Larisa
The thing is, the ragtime radio station could probably do this very
easily. The ragtime community is a fairly close-knit, informal bunch
of people. The music compositions themselves are public domain. If
every ragtime musician were to "donate" a track or a disc into the
public domain for these radio stations to play, the radio station
could operate very nicely without any RIAA interference. I offered to
do that already; the radio station owner said that just agreeing to
waive my royalties will be sufficient. I did so.
The Internet's strength is niche markets - the fact that the oddest
musical enthusiasms can still find listeners. I can't find a ragtime
radio station on the FM or AM spectrum - there's no such thing. But I
can find it on the Internet. This, I think, is the part of Internet
radio that needs preserving - and, happily, the part that's easiest to
preserve.
LM (I would be remiss in not putting in a plug for www.ragtimeradio.org
)
The TheatrElf
> Sorry. My only argument was against the complaint that
> somebody (you?) couldn't get *postage* to mail a letter. In
> Canada, The Ukraine, USA, or Three miles from the antarctic
> pole, I claim that's bullshit if you're close enough to
> civilization to even GET mail at all, let alone be near enough
> to have direct Internet access.
You can claim it's bullshit, but you'd be wrong.
And in fact, here in Miami, there was just a story about a
retirement village that does not have mail service.
http://www.miamiherald.com/419/story/73319.html
Sure, MOST people have a car, but not EVERYONE.
And since the current initiative includes this neat website that
allows you to send a fax to all your local representatives, I
think you've got your knickers in a twist for nothing.
--
Xjahn
The TheatrElf
http://camera-ephemera.blogspot.com/
Art is beautiful until it becomes real or the truth. (Jonathan
Carroll)
Frank McCoy
>Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com> wrote in
>news:efqf23dqpiecc5c37...@4ax.com:
>
>> Sorry. My only argument was against the complaint that
>> somebody (you?) couldn't get *postage* to mail a letter. In
>> Canada, The Ukraine, USA, or Three miles from the antarctic
>> pole, I claim that's bullshit if you're close enough to
>> civilization to even GET mail at all, let alone be near enough
>> to have direct Internet access.
>
>You can claim it's bullshit, but you'd be wrong.
>
>And in fact, here in Miami, there was just a story about a
>retirement village that does not have mail service.
>
>http://www.miamiherald.com/419/story/73319.html
>
Well, reading the article, it's a flat-out LIE that they don't get mail.
They do.
They just get *unsorted* mail. The complaint is that the community has
to sort their own mail, not that they don't GET mail.
Try again.
And *anybody* there can get postage (and presumably does); since there's
no problems with *sending* mail from the common mailbox.
>Sure, MOST people have a car, but not EVERYONE.
>
>And since the current initiative includes this neat website that
>allows you to send a fax to all your local representatives, I
>think you've got your knickers in a twist for nothing.
My only complaint is with somebody complaining they *cannot* get
*postage* to mail a letter without spending huge hunks of money, when
they *have* postal service of any kind at all.
If you can GET mail, you can GET postage!
And NOT pay arms and legs for it either!
Why is that so difficult to understand for people?
If you really CANNOT get mail AT ALL, then OK.
But that doesn't apply to anybody in THIS newsgroup.
Nor, does it apply to those people in Florida.
They GET mail. They can GET postage ... CHEAP.
(Well ... OK ... "Cheap" is a relative thing. But nobody has to pay $20
just to get a 39-cent stamp.)
I repeat:
If you can GET mail, you can GET stamps ... At NORMAL prices.
Not ONE PENNY over what you pay to receive mail in the first place ...
Which is almost universally free, in the USA and Canada.
(And most other countries too. You pay to SEND mail, not GET mail.)
That's the way the U.S. Post Office (or Canada Post) works!
Geesh.
Why is everybody so eager to say I'm wrong about this?
I can't believe that ANYBODY here really believes this bullshit that it
will cost somebody $20 just to get a fricking First Class Stamp!
Especially not when such person ADMITS he/she GETS mail several times a
week (even if not on Saturdays like he/she is supposed to).
I call bullshit; and stand by the call.
Hell, I even *offer* to send said person stamps, envelopes, etc. FOR
FREE, on my own dime, if it costs him/her that much in truth. I'd then
shut up and admit I might be wrong. So far, not a single response to
any such offer.
My email is waiting.
Still.
(Oh, BTW: the offer is open to *anybody*. Like I said: If I get too
many requests for me to handle personally, I'll start a charity. I
really really don't expect *any* such requests; though the offer *will*
remain open for a while.)
Ree
> On Apr 19, 6:27 am, Ree <g...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> donald tees wrote:
>>> Larisa wrote:
>>>> <den...@TANSTAAFL.zipcon.net.INVALID> wrote:
>>>>> On 18 Apr 2007 12:28:17 -0700, Larisa <purple_bov...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Instead of sending an Internet petition - which will do nothing
>>>>>> whatsoever - petition your favorite artist/copyright holder to waive
>>>>>> their royalties for Internet radio play. I think most will agree -
>>>>>> it's free advertising for them, and they don't particularly want
>>>>>> Internet radio to go out of business.
>>>>> The artists may well waive royalties; the RIAA companies definitely
>>>>> won't, as they're the force behind this whole thing.
>>>> Ah - but this will work out very well for the self-represented artists
>>>> out there. Like me. <grinning insufferably at the thought of myself
>>>> as an "artist"> Let the RIAA handicap its musicians all it wants - I
>>>> don't care. There are lots of musicians out there who record their
>>>> own CD's and who are their own production companies. They will
>>>> cheerfully waive royalties if it means keeping their radio station on
>>>> the air. What will happen, I think, is that those musicians will be
>>>> the only ones left on those Internet radio stations; and this may not
>>>> altogether be a bad thing. Percentage-wise, they'll be getting much
>>>> more exposure.
>>>> I post on a ragtime Yahoo Group, and the guy who runs the ragtime
>>>> radio station posts there too. When he first complained about the
>>>> proposed fee increase, I wrote that I will waive my fee; and quite a
>>>> few other musicians also chimed in - we all want to keep this radio
>>>> station on the air.
>>>>> broadcasts. (this of course would mean the end of music on the radio,
>>>>> period.)
>>>> No, just the end of RIAA music on the radio. And this may very well
>>>> lead to a significant power shift. If they want to shoot themselves
>>>> in the foot this way - let them. I, personally, am rather sick of all
>>>> this RIAA nonsense.
>>>> The RIAA is becoming increasingly irrelevant. Heck, I'm a clueless
>>>> amateur and I produced a salable ragtime piano CD on my first try, in
>>>> my own living room, with about $500 worth of equipment. Every single
>>>> ragtime musician I know records their own CD and basically is their
>>>> own record label; big record labels aren't so interested in ragtime.
>>>> Services like CDBaby can bring these musicians directly to a worldwide
>>>> audience without some record label taking the lion's share of the
>>>> profits. Many of the CD's I own were recorded and produced with no
>>>> RIAA intervention - and they sound professional.
>>>> Look on CDBaby sometime, and see just how much cool stuff there is out
>>>> there. I was rather flabbergasted, myself. If all of those musicians
>>>> were to put their mind to it, they could save Internet radio. And if
>>>> you send *them* this petition of yours, it just might have the desired
>>>> effect.
>>>> LM
>>> Got an URL? I'd like to hear some. I am a piano lover (I have a 1904
>>> upright grand I rebuilt, but cannot play a damn) and do like both
>>> ragtime and blues piano.
>>> Donald
>>
>> http://cdbaby.com/cd/canadiancelticchoir2
>>
>> Our Christmas CD is on there as well!
>
> Wow, that's gorgeous!
>
> LM
>
>
Why thank you!
Ree. :-D
The TheatrElf
> If you can GET mail, you can GET postage!
Define "get." In the case I posted, "getting" the mail is
expensive and complicated and no sure thing - and that's in a
major US city!
--
Xjahn
The TheatrElf
http://camera-ephemera.blogspot.com/
Don't believe them, don't believe them, question everything
you're told
The TheatrElf
> (Well ... OK ... "Cheap" is a relative thing. But nobody has
> to pay $20 just to get a 39-cent stamp.)
You do when you have to hire someone to drive to the PO to get,
as in the case I linked earlier.
--
Xjahn
The TheatrElf
http://camera-ephemera.blogspot.com/
Don't believe them, don't believe them, question everything
you're told
donald tees
> The argument started with the claim it would cost $20 (*US!!!*) to go
> get a postage-stamp. That's pure bull-crap. If you have means to get
> *groceries* let alone Internet Access, then you have access to get
> *postage* at close to Post Office Prices ... without ever leaving home
> or your own room, for that matter.
>
Well, that is pretty close to true for me, in Ontario. The closest place
I can get stamps, and the two closest grocery stores, and my bank make
the corners of about a three miles square. The post office is the
closest place I can get stamps or mail a letter. I can get cash at the
store across the street, though it costs me $1.50 per transaction. I
cannot deposit a cheque there. You can insist that I can buy stamps at
other than the post office, or that I can get them delivered until you
are blue in the face. It simply is not true.
It costs me $7.00 a week to get groceries. That's $5.00 and a tooney
tip. I walk one way, and get a cab home with the groceries. If I take
a cab both ways, the cost doubles. At twenty below, in the dead of
winter, and in the ran, I usually do. I generally walk to bank and home
one day a week, and get groceries on a different day. Adding the post
office to either trip adds 3/4 of an hour. And is equal in cost. I use
postal services as seldom as I have to. That is very close to the above.
I'm healthy and employed, and make at least enough to pay me what I
need. I have no car because I have chosen not to, and because I am
retired enough not to need one. I cabs cheaper. But I can still begrudge
the time and money. To someone at sustenance level, or someone with a
physical impairment (often both) I figure it *would* be difficult to the
point *I* sure would not do it. Public Transportation takes longer. All
buses go to a common transfer point, and then back out. I can walk it
faster than I can bus it.
The fact you think I'm full of bull crap is fairly irrelevant to me.
I've made a fool of myself in front of better men than you.
But the claim could very easily have been valid. If *I* had made it,
and I dropped it to $15, it would be. True fact. Honest Injun. I even
live in a fairly civilized part of the continent. I think you owe him an
apology.
Donald
Frank McCoy
>Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com> wrote in
>news:to0g23dvbnsaosl8f...@4ax.com:
>
>> If you can GET mail, you can GET postage!
>
>Define "get." In the case I posted, "getting" the mail is
>expensive and complicated and no sure thing - and that's in a
>major US city!
Expensive?
That somebody has to go down and *sort* through the mail to see whose
mail is whose? Perhaps a bit *annoying* but not really expensive. If
it costs too much, and you are on a fixed income, then bloody do it
yourself.
No way though, do I see it justifying an idea that you'd have to pay as
much as $20 to get *postage*.
I'm sorry; but that claim just broke my bullshit meter.
I also can't see why so many people are eager to support the claim.
Wesley Struebing
<thea...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Nohbody <lo...@my.reply-to.address> wrote in
>news:Z1zVh.27064$254....@bignews7.bellsouth.net:
>
>> The point of my original post in this thread was that internet
>> petitions AREN'T going to make your voice known. They do
>> little more than waste the time of you and other signees, the
>> person organizing the petition, and the intern or staffer that
>> handles e-mailings from constituents.
>
>BTW, the current system being used in regards to the internet
>radio licensing bill isn't using email. It creates a fax from
>the person filling in the info. The system "reads" your address
>and automatically sends a fax FROM YOU to your representatives.
>
>The fax has your name, address and telephone number. You can use
>a generated message, or create one entirely of your own
>composition.
Indeed, most Congresscritters specifically have the mass emailings
blocked. Individual and fax do get through (mostly)
Still think (as do others here) that the hand-written letter -
assuming it is legible and coherent - still is the best. Problem is
it's too slow for fast-breaking events.
--
Wes Struebing
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America,
and to the republic which it established, one nation from many peoples,
promising liberty and justice for all.
Frank McCoy
>Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com> wrote in
>news:to0g23dvbnsaosl8f...@4ax.com:
>
>> (Well ... OK ... "Cheap" is a relative thing. But nobody has
>> to pay $20 just to get a 39-cent stamp.)
>
>You do when you have to hire someone to drive to the PO to get,
>as in the case I linked earlier.
The whole *community* has to get somebody to go get the mail.
Somebody does; and no way you're going to convince me that *ONE PERSON*
has to pay *for the whole community*!
Since this is an *everyday occurrence*, you know darned well everybody
pays some small amount to get their mail.
Now it doesn't matter HOW big or HOW small that amount they pay is.
What matters is (and note this): THEY PAY IT ANYWAY!!!
(Or they don't get their mail.)
So the extra charged for another First Class Letter from the Post
Office, is going to be flat-out BURIED in all the other mail they get.
Most especially junk-mail.
Nope. Try again.
$20 just to get postage.
No bloody way!
Besides, even if said person in said community DID have to pay atrocious
rates to get mail delivered. In THAT community, where does said person
get groceries? The same place will ALSO sell him/her stamps; or if
delivery, will deliver stamps. The point in either case is:
YOU DON'T HAVE TO GO TO THE POST OFFICE TO GET STAMPS!!!!
Never have, never will.
Actually, as I pointed out, you can go online (In the USA anyway) pay
for postage online in any of a dozen ways, and *PRINT IT YOURSELF* on a
letter. The software is free, from the post-office.
I can name at least a dozen OTHER ways to get postage without paying a
penny more than the price of the stamps themselves, without ever leaving
your chair. The claim that the reason a person can't mail a letter is
because it costs $20 for a TAXI to run to the Post Office to get stamps,
is BOGUS. Most especially so, when (as I've pointed out) that same
person has internet access and is posting to newsgroups like this one.
Can't anybody besides me SEE that?
I've also *volunteered* to send the guy postage and envelopes FREE.
I've yet to receive a reply.
No, there are MANY valid reasons not to want to send letters by
snail-mail; but *that* reason isn't a reason. It's a completely
transparent *excuse* that doesn't stand up to the light of day.
The BEST reason of all, of course, being, "I don't WANT to."
If that's the case, why not SAY so?
Why make up an imaginary reason that's bullshit?
Hell, even if you believed it before, why stick by it once I've showed
over a dozen ways to get postage without any charges for delivery?
And WHY do people insist I'm wrong; when I *do* keep posting different
ways of getting postage?
Is there something terribly wrong about pointing out when somebody else
here is spouting bull crap? Everybody is acting like I'm being mean and
cruel for pointing out the fact that the Emperor is stark staring naked.
Since everybody here seems to think I'm terribly out-of-line for
pointing out the bull-crap, I'll ignore any more comments saying I'm
wrong or right in this matter. It ain't worth it. ;-{
But the offer still stands.
Mr Van Wau Wau
> In alt.callahans The TheatrElf <x...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> >Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com> wrote in
>
> >>>Rick (sometimes is a GentleRF and sometimes is not)
>
> >> Sorry, but my mother is likely more shut-in than any of those
> >> you name. SHE doesn't let that stop her from writing letters.
>
> >Good for her. But why are you being such a fucking asshole?
> >What's the point? Just whose side do you think you're own, and
> >whose agenda do you think you're serving by treating everyone
> >around you like shit?
>
> I'm just pointing out the bullshit when people say they *can't* write
> letters because they can't get postage!
>
> Hell, I've offered to send them postage myself; so that bullshit fails.
> I'll even send international postage from the US or Canada, if
> necessary. Far harder for ME to do than somebody living there.
>
> It's a bullshit excuse; and I'm calling bullshit.
>
> Not WANTING to write, that's something else: A personal decision.
> Not being able to get postage is bullshit.
>
> I'd also stop my rant if somebody *did* find it necessary to send me
> email asking for postage since they didn't think they could get any by
> any other method. I check my email almost every hour.
>
> I just say those complaining they cannot get *postage* are not trying.
> There's no penalty for such laziness except being called on it.
>
> Hell, if I found *anybody* in ten miles of me that was unable to write
> letters the wanted to, purely because they couldn't get the needed
> postage, I'd get it (postage, stamps, envelopes, etc.) to them myself.
> I don't go out doing this all the time, because I personally don't
> believe any such person of the several million or so inhabitants around
> my home, exists within 100 miles of here ... especially not any person
> having access to the web and these newsgroups in particular.
>
> If that's "treating people like shit"; then so be it.
> I calls bullshit when I sees it.
> Sorry if that offends people.
>
> _____
> / ' / ™
> ,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
> (_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_
Lord! Ok let me explain further. my brother works as a truckdriver and
is out of town from tuesday to thursday plus his wife works for the
school system monday-friday that pretty much leaves only the weekend
to spend time with my 3 Nieces and nephews. so they don't have time to
deal with my transportation problems. amd also my brother is very
consevative and believes a person should deal with thier own problems
if possible.I have A friend who livers here in beaufort but she has a
very unreliable schedule. and I have gone to my grocery store and they
dont sell stamps. You can email me at guillo...@hotmail.com to get
my address to send me the stamps and paper
signed
David Guillot
Frank McCoy
>On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 20:44:36 -0500, The TheatrElf
><thea...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Nohbody <lo...@my.reply-to.address> wrote in
>>news:Z1zVh.27064$254....@bignews7.bellsouth.net:
>>
>>> The point of my original post in this thread was that internet
>>> petitions AREN'T going to make your voice known. They do
>>> little more than waste the time of you and other signees, the
>>> person organizing the petition, and the intern or staffer that
>>> handles e-mailings from constituents.
>>
>>BTW, the current system being used in regards to the internet
>>radio licensing bill isn't using email. It creates a fax from
>>the person filling in the info. The system "reads" your address
>>and automatically sends a fax FROM YOU to your representatives.
>>
>>The fax has your name, address and telephone number. You can use
>>a generated message, or create one entirely of your own
>>composition.
>
>Indeed, most Congresscritters specifically have the mass emailings
>blocked. Individual and fax do get through (mostly)
>
>Still think (as do others here) that the hand-written letter -
>assuming it is legible and coherent - still is the best. Problem is
>it's too slow for fast-breaking events.
Chalk up another win for fax then.
Still ... mail isn't really *that* slow these days ... mostly ...
somewhat ... maybe. About three days, usually.
Denny Wheeler
wrote:
>>Webcasters: "But we can't pay those fees! We'll have to go out of
>>business entirely!"
>>
>>RIAA: "Those terms are accepted."
>
>Yep. ;-{
And then RIAA start their own webcasts...
--
-denny-
curmudgeon & editor
"To be a book-collector is to combine the worst characteristics
of a dope fiend with those of a miser."
- Robertson Davies
Frank McCoy
>Frank McCoy wrote:
>> The argument started with the claim it would cost $20 (*US!!!*) to go
>> get a postage-stamp. That's pure bull-crap. If you have means to get
>> *groceries* let alone Internet Access, then you have access to get
>> *postage* at close to Post Office Prices ... without ever leaving home
>> or your own room, for that matter.
>>
>
>Well, that is pretty close to true for me, in Ontario. The closest place
>I can get stamps, and the two closest grocery stores, and my bank make
>the corners of about a three miles square. The post office is the
>closest place I can get stamps or mail a letter. I can get cash at the
>store across the street, though it costs me $1.50 per transaction. I
>cannot deposit a cheque there. You can insist that I can buy stamps at
>other than the post office, or that I can get them delivered until you
>are blue in the face. It simply is not true.
>
Do you get mail ... specifically, do you get *junk* mail?
If you do, I stand by my claim.
If not, then yours has validity.
Note that the claim was *not* about mailing a letter; but about getting
*postage*.
>It costs me $7.00 a week to get groceries. That's $5.00 and a tooney
>tip. I walk one way, and get a cab home with the groceries.
Have you ever *asked* at the store where you buy groceries if they would
sell you a stamp or stamps? The Post Office is *not* the only place in
the world to buy stamps. Almost every grocery store in the world worthy
of the name sells stamps. The further out in the boonies and distant
from "civilization" the store is, the more likely they'll have stamps.
Also, the more likely they'll take your mail and deliver it to the
post-office FOR you, if you request.
I know ... Had to do that quite a few times when *I* was about 50 miles
from nowhere.
>If I take
>a cab both ways, the cost doubles. At twenty below, in the dead of
>winter, and in the ran, I usually do. I generally walk to bank and home
>one day a week, and get groceries on a different day. Adding the post
>office to either trip adds 3/4 of an hour. And is equal in cost. I use
>postal services as seldom as I have to. That is very close to the above.
>
>I'm healthy and employed, and make at least enough to pay me what I
>need. I have no car because I have chosen not to, and because I am
>retired enough not to need one. I cabs cheaper. But I can still begrudge
>the time and money. To someone at sustenance level, or someone with a
>physical impairment (often both) I figure it *would* be difficult to the
>point *I* sure would not do it. Public Transportation takes longer. All
>buses go to a common transfer point, and then back out. I can walk it
>faster than I can bus it.
>
>The fact you think I'm full of bull crap is fairly irrelevant to me.
>I've made a fool of myself in front of better men than you.
>
If not full of bull-crap, then obviously somebody who thinks the obvious
way is the *only* way to do something.
Like I said many times already, Going *physically* to the Post Office is
only *one* out of *many* ways to get postage. You have a computer, you
connect to the net. You have enough money to buy postage at regular
prices. *There ain't no way in HELL I'll believe you can't order stamps
through the net, get them from the grocery-store, ask a friend, or even
the bloody cab-driver to bring some with him when he comes. Hell, post
a message to any of these newsgroups and ASK somebody to get postage to
you, if that's what you need. NO WAY it will cost you cab-driver fare
to get ... ESPECIALL NOT if you're already driving there!
(And you DO admit getting in to get groceries!)
*USE your bloody imagination!!!*
Geesh.
>But the claim could very easily have been valid. If *I* had made it,
>and I dropped it to $15, it would be. True fact. Honest Injun. I even
>live in a fairly civilized part of the continent. I think you owe him an
>apology.
>
>Donald
--
Frank McCoy
>You can email me at guillo...@hotmail.com to get
>my address to send me the stamps and paper
On the way.
Denny Wheeler
wrote:
>If you don't get the letter (with the postage) in two weeks, I'll back
>down and get off my high horse.
>
>Besides, you didn't say you didn't get mail or couldn't send it.
>You only complained you couldn't get *postage*.
>Are you now changing the problem to fit your complaint?
Frank, you idiot, it was Ralph Van Wau Wau who said that, not Donald
Tees!!! Donald specified that he walks or bikes to his post office.
Ralph cannot do so. (I suspect that however his groceries arrive, a
few stamps could be arranged to come the same time, but that's his
decision--and it was rude of you to rail at him.)
(please note that the "you idiot" is meant in friendly fashion. I'm
channeling Hawkeye, I think)
donald tees
>>
> Do you get mail ... specifically, do you get *junk* mail?
> If you do, I stand by my claim.
> If not, then yours has validity.
> Note that the claim was *not* about mailing a letter; but about getting
> *postage*.
Our post office does not deliver stamps. And they do not pick up mail.
They deliver mail. Period. *Both* mailings and stamps require a visit
to the post office. Yes I get bulk junk mail deliveries. What has that
to do with whether the postmaid will deliver stamps to my mail box, or
pick up my outgoing mail? She will do either. An outgoing letter
requires a trip to th post office. Only one, I am smart enough to write
the letter first and lick the stamp when I get there to mail it. But $7
there and $7 back. I could also write two letters, and half my per
letter rate.
Out mail service has been reduced to the point of uselessness, granted.
The only real purpose for it is bulk mailers and those with huge amounts
of outgoing mail. It would be as cheap to courier it for a single
outgoing letter. About $12 ... less than the Cab fare to use the post
office. And for the $12, they pick it up at my desk. Knock on the door,
then come and get it. I actually do use courier rather than letter.
If he cannot afford that, he cannot afford it. He knows his budget
better that you do.
Donald
donald tees
Maybe because it is true?
Donald
The TheatrElf
> In alt.callahans The TheatrElf <xj...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>>Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com> wrote in
>>news:to0g23dvbnsaosl8f...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> If you can GET mail, you can GET postage!
>>
>>Define "get." In the case I posted, "getting" the mail is
>>expensive and complicated and no sure thing - and that's in a
>>major US city!
>
> Expensive?
> That somebody has to go down and *sort* through the mail to
> see whose mail is whose? Perhaps a bit *annoying* but not
> really expensive. If it costs too much, and you are on a
> fixed income, then bloody do it yourself.
Words fail me. I'm done giving you the benefit of the doubt. I
can only conclude that you really are rotten to the core, and I'm
done wasting time with you.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html
http://camera-ephemera.blogspot.com/
If you view your problem closely enough you will recognize
yourself as part of the problem.