Imagine this: you have a real-time interface that must be responsive and satisfying, simple enough to be approachable, but sophisticated enough that you’ll want to finely hone your skills over time. You’ll juggle a variety of elements to control with split-second accuracy, but even with elaborate mechanics under the hood, the whole thing, above all, has to be fun.

Sound familiar? It’s a description that’s equally apt for traditional music instruments and modern music software, as much as it is for games. The fact that, once they’re done, a game is often very not like familiar music software and instruments suggests the range of possible solutions to these design challenges. And suddenly, after years in which the games industry clung conservatively to tied and tested models, indie game designers with oddball game designs are grabbing the headlines. Some continue to tackle the meeting point of game and music making. Others offer inspiration for what futuristic 3D musical interfaces might look like.

I unfortunately didn’t make it to the game developer pow-wow that is GDC, but our friend Josh Randall at Harmonix tipped us off with these top picks. Given the blog buzz they’re earning, you may have seen some already, proving great independent game design may not be constrained to obscurity any longer.

Some games are playable on Windows now; Mac users may want to hit up Boot Camp, or watch for release on a console near you. (The pattern seems to be, prototype on PC but ship on consoles where better money can be made.)

The Web holds huge potential for music sharing and music discovery, but figuring out how to make that potential work — and how to navigate copyright and licensing laws in the process - has been a major challenge. This week, the creators of the website Mixaloo promised to “bring mix tapes into the digital age.” Whether you buy into that concept or not, or their particular implementation, the site does demonstrate both some of the opportunities and legal hurdles in Web sharing. They also inherit the closed model supported by labels (no full streams, previews only, DRM), but already that’s changing (MP3, and the promise, hopefully, of full-length tracks soon). It’s like a microcosm of the whole business at the moment.

Mixaloo.com

I spoke to the founders shortly before launch, and they described how their approach differs from the online radio model, which is constrained in part by the law:

There’s the streaming radio camp … you have a minimum of forty tracks, you can’t have the same artist twice in a row, and then you get into the whole mess of royalties. Then there’s the way we’re going — user-generated albums. And we like that because it’s personalized.”

The basic model:

• 10 or more tracks on the “mix tape”
• Mix your album from 3.5 million + tracks.
• Majors and indie music — the founders say they have “deals with all the major labels” but also “a ton of independent aggregators like CD Baby, The Orchard, and Iota
• Embed players and market mixes on Blogger, MySpace, Facebook, Friendster, etc.
• Sell tracks via any of your players and earn a 50% commission
• For now, 30-second previews — but hopefully that will change? (more in a moment)

This may stretch your definition of “good news” for webcasters, but the latest on the Internet Radio crisis runs something like this:

Webcasters don’t yet have to pay new fees for their broadcast. But they’re still accruing debt — fast. Sort of like our credit card debt.

Webcasters may get a small break on the minimum fee, one that could literally have shut down “personalized” radio services. SoundExchange explains the deal thusly:

Under the new proposal, to be implemented by remand to the CRJs, SoundExchange has offered to cap the $500 per channel minimum fee at $50,000 per year for webcasters who agree to provide more detailed reporting of the music that they play and work to stop users from engaging in “streamripping” – turning Internet radio performances into a digital music library.

Note the big attached “ifs”, which are vaguely worded in the official SoundExchange announcement, and sound all the more threatening given, according to SoundExchange, the previous rates are already in effect. Whichever side you’re on here, you have to give SoundExchange some credit for, erm, negotiating skill. “Hey, so while you’re dangled over this bridge, I wonder if we might … negotiate some small items?”

The one shred of good news: apparently Congress has applied some pressure on SoundExchange to negotiate, meaning public action has actually made some difference. Whatever the ultimate solution, it’d be nice to think some sort of public involvement might push the government to do something effective.

Wired has some good reporting on this:
Net Radio Wins Partial Reprieve as Royalties Loom

Meanwhile, I have a partial vacation to get back to. See you soon.

Several readers have observed this quite eloquently, but let’s summarize: laws around music are complicated, messy, and confusing. If they don’t seem that way to you, you’re either a lawyer or you haven’t done your homework. That said, without question, proposed changes to streaming music licensing fees would be devastating to Internet radio, because not just top 40 music requires license fees — even many indie labels are RIAA members and participate in SoundExchange. But here’s the key: they’d be devastating as proposed. And suddenly, at the eleventh hour, SoundExchange seems to be backpedaling. (Their strategy, evidently: push as hard as possible until the last conceivable moment, then find a deal that works for them — while they retain the upper hand at the bargaining table. Surprise, surprise.)

Hear that? Nothing. No, it’s not silence making a political point, as with the Internet Radio Day of Silence staged last week by web radio to protest punishing new royalty rates by showing what they could cause. This is an even more disturbing silence: as the deadline for new US rates for Net radio approaches, online radio’s supporters seem to be desperate and exhausted.

Here’s the problem: net radio supporters, concerned that new rates (and the backdated royalty rates that would be owed along with them) could kill Internet radio, haven’t exactly gotten a lot of good news lately. They’ve failed to stop the new rules in the courts: the U.S. Court of Appeals denied a “motion to stay” that could further postpone the ticking clock. And, despite overwhelming public support that jammed fax machines and stunned Members of Congress, the U.S. Congress has failed to actually bring a bill to the floor. Members were happy to co-sponsor legislation and say nice things to supporters, but not actually try to pass the legislation itself.

Barring any further action, Net radio is going to have a massive bill sitting on its desk this coming Monday. It’ll cover not only the new rates, but months and months of back-dated rates. With public broadcasting in a dire situation already, and independent music struggling to come into its own via fledgling Web outlets, that seems like really bad news.

Interestingly, one major outlet — one we’re big fans of here at CDM — disagrees. Last.fm argues that this is much ado about nothing, not because they’re a UK-based company (international broadcasters are subject to US rules — sorry, guys), but because they’ve managed to negotiate independently with the labels to get rates that work for them. That’s great — for Last.fm. But I question just how relevant this is to anyone else. Aside from the fact that not every single broadcaster can — or should have to — negotiate independently with labels, there’s also the fact that Last.fm can do its own programming around what it’s able to license. That isn’t the case for, say, a college public radio station doing a webstream of its usual programming. Given the strong material evidence presented by other broadcasters, it would seem that, despite Last.fm’s smug, broad pronouncements (ironic coming from a company owned by CBS), their situation is unique.

That means one thing: it’s time to hit the phones, Americans. (Hello, Rest of the World — while our laws may indeed wind up punishing your radio, too, I’m afraid there’s little you can do, other than call your American buddies and tell them to call.)

Call your Senators (you’ve got two of them) and your Representative (one of those). You can find the information here:

Capwiz.com Townhall Contact Info

And, as I’ve said before, there’s all the reason for independent artists to make this call. The new royalty rates in the Congressional bill aren’t perfect, but they would establish a framework for setting fair rates across media in the future. The idea is not to eliminate royalties; it’s to set it a rate that expanding media outlets can cover. More growth for listeners could ultimately mean more royalty rates. And by protecting independent online outlets, artists have an opportunity to ensure the growth of digital media as a means of promoting their work, which can funnel money into better revenue sources for us, from commissions to album sales to live music ticket sales.

For more on the indie artist perspective, see Independent Artists Fear the Demise of Internet Radio from The Baltimore Sun on (ironically) July 4.

Feel free to let us know how your Congresspeople respond here in comments. And let’s hope that this largely inactive Congress can at least bring this important debate to the floor, rather than remaining silent themselves. Wherever you stand, total inaction is the worst kind of silence of all.

If you switch on your favorite radio stream and hear something unusual — people talking about Internet policy, ambient sounds, or nothing at all — you’re getting a glimpse of a world that could be here by next month. To illustrate the devastating effect new US royalty rates could have on online broadcasters, broadcasters large and small are making today, Tuesday, June 26, a “day of silence.” They’re not just being dramatic: online broadcasters from public radio stations to big services like Rhapsody have said they simply won’t be able to swallow the new rates. Small broadcasters don’t have the money, and big broadcasters can’t justify losing money to shareholders. (Worse, the rates are retroactive, so this could really damage already-beleaguered American public broadcasting.)

Here’s why the rates are bad, and how to take action today.

July 15, not May 15, could be the “end of Internet radio.” And the royalties body, SoundExchange, wants you to believe that opponents of an Internet radio rate hike just want to protect big corporations. I’m not buying — and public radio stations threatened by the new rules aren’t, either.

The Copyright Royalty Board has delayed to July 15 the deadline by which Internet radio webcasters will pay a new royalty rate and back royalties. To the webcasters and opponents of the rate hike, the delay is a “stay of execution” (as described in a recent Live365 press advisory), one that buys time for Congressional legislation to block the new rules. To SoundExchange, the body that collects the royalties, the rules are a “final determination” on the rules, and according to a press release by the group, the extra time can be used to start collecting royalties, “providing greater business flexibility for all concerned parties.”

So there you have it:

Hurrah, the rules are delayed, and we have time to defeat them with the help of Congress. OR

Hurrah, the rules are final, and we have extra time to start collecting money from you, aren’t you as happy about that as we are?

The clock is ticking for Internet radio, from public broadcasting streams from stations like KCRW to Internet-only streaming services like Pandora. The Copyright Royalties Board recently approved new rates and restrictions that would increase costs for streamers by three to twelve times their previous rate. This month, the CRB rejected an appeal by broadcasters to reconsider the rates. As a result, by May 15 streamers will have to not only begin paying the 2007 rate but also back-dated royalties going back to the beginning of 2006. Without changes to the rules, many stations will simply shutter on the 15th of May. (That won’t be limited to US-based radio stations, either; any station broadcasting in the US — theoretically, any station at all — is subject to US liability.)

The new rules are wrong on three counts:

The rules would devastate internet streams, while other media pay little or nothing. Terrestrial (AM/FM) radio pays nothing. Satellite radio pays about 3-7% of income. And yet online radio will be charged per listener, per song and will be subjected to fees regardless of proportionate income. There’s even a poorly-defined minimum fee that slaps everyone. Small stations won’t be able to afford it. Struggling public radio in the US will have to shutter streams and lose income from people pledging online and pay back fees at a time they’re strapped for cash. Internet-only services will have to shutter to protect investors from liability. And big stations and big services will have to give up, as well; even with the money to support the fees, they may be unable to justify their profit model. (One service speaking out against the new rules, for example: Yahoo! Music.)

The rules would hurt artists’ revenues. Let’s put aside promotion for a moment: the Internet has the potential to become a vital revenue stream. Internet radio should pay a reasonable rate for using music. If those rates are set so high that the streams have to shut down, though, we’re back to FM and satellite radio, which pay little or nothing and play far less of our music; in the case of FM, to a smaller audience (since that college radio station that just got international distribution now has none).

The rules would hurt musical audiences and the artists working to connect with them. Losing revenues, even the small revenues from radio, hurts. Losing promotion hurts artists even more. How many artists have you discovered because you heard them on the radio? How many more have you discovered via internet streams, or discovery-focused services like Last.fm and Pandora? Compare satellite radio and the FM stations you can tune in locally, and the situation is dismal in terms of variety. This situation is destructive to listeners and artists alike. And, ironically, that means it hurts labels. Streaming songs impacts music stores, online and off, because it’s a mechanism for discovering music. (Ironically, even many online stores stream whole tracks because it helps them sell them.) Letting internet radio operate for free isn’t even under discussion; at the heart of this debate is setting fare rates and allowing Internet radio to survive.

US Legislation Offers a Solution

We’ve seen various efforts to “boycott” the RIAA, an organization of member labels that backs the collection agency in this case (SoundExchange) and has lobbied on the behalf of the new rules. But that ignores the fact that the RIAA is already working against the best interests of its members — and trying to inflict damage on the member labels’ record sales is unlikely to either change their membership status in the RIAA or the RIAA’s lobbying position, however misguided.

With time running out, a better solution is to support legislation that would intervene in the new rules. Members of Congress often don’t hear anything from constituents on this issue. As groups like Savenetradio.org flooded the Congressional switchboard with phone calls, two Members took action. The bipartisan bill, H.R. 2060, the “Internet Radio Equality Act”, sponsored by Representatives Jay Inslee (D-WA) and Donald Manzullo (R-IL), promises to set the rates at a more reasonable level related to income (7.5% of revenue, or 33 cents per hour per listener). The new legislation is backed by streamers and artists alike.

If you want to support the new legislation and you live in the United States, you can find numbers for your Representatives via Savenetradio.org’s site:
H.R. 2060 Action Alert

You won’t be alone. Pandora reports over 200,000 of their listeners have called their Congresspeople, and sent so many faxes they shut down Capitol Hill’s fax infrastructure. Pandora delivered boxes of faxes by hand. (Source: IP Democracy.)

Previously:
If Streaming Rates Stand, “We’ll Have to Shutter”, Says Pandora Founder
Pandora’s Founder on Decoding Taste and Promoting Indie Music

For more background on the issue, see the Save Internet Radio blog. Found other good discussion or information? Do share in comments.

A Copyright Royalty Board decision last week chose to adopt a strict new fee structure proposed by a collection body of the RIAA for all web streams, far out of proportion to the fees paid by other media (broadcast, satellite radio) and previous paid by radio streams. Will the higher fees benefit musicians? Not if you ask the streamers; numerous arguments online suggest the cost of the new fees would actually exceed income, from everyone from small streams to enormous ones, and could threaten services like Pandora.

For additional background:
Webcast royalty rate decision announced at the Radio and Internet Newsletter, which argues this royalty alone (on top of publishing royalties) could easily exceed income for the average webcaster
Copyright Royalty Board Releases Decision - Rates are Going Up Significantly at the Broadcast Law Blog

And on the Pandora blog:
RIAA’s new royalty rates will kill online radio!! and More on the Copyright Ruling

I got the chance to follow-up a recent interview with Pandora founder Tim Westergren, also published today. His outlook, like many other streamers, is bleak, and he explains why.

CDM: We’ve heard lots of estimates and analysis about what the new fees would add in cost, proportionally. Can you quantify what the new rules would mean for Pandora?

TW: For us, tens of millions of dollars. It’s really over the top.

It impacts everybody the same way, proportionally. The smaller you are, the less you’ll pay just because you don’t stream as many songs … but it’s going to hit them just as hard.