One of Static-X's fans posted the "Dear Rock Stars, Who Will Speak the Truth" article on the band's website, evoking a response from Tripp Eisen, which follows:

There is a fundamental issue here: Property Rights. A recorded song is the property of the artist & record company jointly. They decide what is done with the recording.

The right to play the song is paid for by radio stations and television, then it is for public consumption. Someone could record the music off the radio or television, but it's for their private use only. Otherwise it is illegal. That is one crucial issue: private use. (This also applies to television broadcasts, movies, or books, magazines and other print publications).

The most crucial issue is that the right to play the music is paid for. If a website pays for this then it is permitted. For someone to take a song & put it up online (making it public) is clearly illegal & a breach of contract; violating the property rights of the artist.

The only gray area is sharing music with a friend. This is like burning a CD and giving it to a friend (or making a cassette or any other form of audio), or emailing a song to a friend. This is within the rights of the individual.

Summary: It is illegal to post music, audio, video, photos, or print (articles) up online without the consent of the owner. Outside the Internet the owner of the material retains the right of distribution of their product to the public.

It really is a simple property rights issue.

Tripp Eisen (Static-X)

---------------------------

I would like to thank Tripp Eisen for responding. The article to which it refers was originally published on the Internet in March, 2003, shortly after Don Henley spoke of payola in a Senate Commerce hearing and just before Clear Channel announced that it was doing away with independent promoters, which Henley had identified as the new method de jour to skirt the law and facilitate payola.

The heart of my original article was the question of why we had to pay to hear music on the Internet when the radio was free to listen to AND the artists were actually paying to receive the airplay.

Eisen says "The right to play the song is paid for by radio stations and television."

Really? My first question is whether any royalty income from such payments outweighs the cost to get the songs played in the first place. Last I heard this was about a half million ($US) per song.

As I understand it, radio and television pay performance royalties to the songwriter and publisher only. Under the Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act of 1995, traditional radio broadcasts haven't been subject to royalties to recording companies and performers because they have served to promote sales of recordings.

In fact, yesterday a 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided that radio stations must pay royalties to recording companies and performers, as they do to composers and songwriters, when musical broadcasts are "streamed" over the Internet.

This means that even if you are a radio station, and are streaming (not allowing downloading), there is a different set of rules in play. In both cases, the consumers' only theoretical option is to listen (although we know digital streams can be captured, just as radio broadcasts).

This brings into question again the core issue. What is the difference between listening on the Internet and on the radio? Especially if you are a radio station owner? If a radio station broadcast serves "to promote sales of recordings," why would a stream on the Internet not serve the same purpose?

This is not a simple property rights issue. It is an issue of the balance between public domain and corporate ownership, the diminishment of any cultural remnants not packaged in a DRM wrapper and the simple fact that the copyright law governs material objects.

-- George Ziemann

Tripp must be trippin' if he expects us to believe this crap:
"A recorded song is the property of the artist & record company jointly. They decide what is done with the recording."

Who is they? The artists are just 'work for hires' when they sign most contracts. They loose their right to any say as to how the music is used...

So the toadie totes the official line it would seem.

As for online radio, they were almost put out of business because of the royalty rate at which they were expected to pay for playing music verses the onair radio stations.

"This brings into question again the core issue. What is the difference between listening on the Internet and on the radio?"

Well for one thing listening on the internet is extremely more expensive than on air because you first need a computer than an isp connection. To get any reasonable response would require a broadband connection. So in the long run free online radio doesn't exist! So it seem that it just goes and goes where everyone is holding out their hands looking to make money.

Tripp's explanation sounds like something an person would say to kids when explaining something he doesn't really understand himself.

Yeah, Tripp puts forward a very simplistic view of the issue completely ignoring the fluent environment that advancing technology creates. From a black and white law perspective he's probably right, but it sounds like he's totally unwilling to concede there is a vigorous public debate going on.

My understanding was that after that court ruling internet radio station now have to pay for each song they play, but conventional radio stations do not? Is this correct? If so it's totally descriminatory against the internet when they both do the same thing. I don't see the difference. Do they think it's easier to record from the internet stream or are they just scared of the internet. Net stations still can't reveal songs that are coming up so listeners can prepare the stream ripper. If true it's just another strategy they're using to lock out the internet.

of course George did ask for a "rock star" to respond. Who is tripp einstien?

"The only gray area is sharing music with a friend. This is like burning a CD and giving it to a friend (or making a cassette or any other form of audio), or emailing a song to a friend. This is within the rights of the individual."

I have 60 million friends!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Haha! Exactly dave109100. Who could argue that . All the judge could do would be to raise his eyebrows sardonically . But seriously, anyone who file shares I'd consider my friend, who could come into my house any time...just not at the same time (neighbours would complain).

I heard that the labels pay the radio stations to play the music. Im not sure.