Simon James writes with still more free sound — and free, indeed, as Montreal Expo in 1967 (the World’s Fair) brought together some of electronic sound’s most radical musicians, the type of gang who could freak out a crowd today as much as forty years ago.

Thanks again for the mention of Tone Generation. I just thought I’d draw your attention to another related piece I produced with Ian Helliwell last year. It was called ‘Expo 67 - A Radiophonic collage’ and was a snapshot in sound of the Montreal worlds fair in 1967. Tristram Cary composed music for the Great Britain pavilion and much of this is used in the programme. If you listen closely you’ll also hear Tristam’s voice popping up.

Also featured are compositions by Hugh le Caine, Donald Erb, Eldon Rathburn, Erkki Salmenhaara & Erkki Kurrniemi, Giles Tremblay and Iannis Xenakis.

As always keep up the inspiring work with CDM. It is in my top 3 sites that I visit daily alongside Music Thing and Matrix Synth.

Give the music a listen:

Expo 67 Radiophonic Collage

And to help give yourself some visual inspiration, check out this retro-fantastic archive of Montreal Expo pictures, found (bizarrely) in a scrapbook found on the street in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Montreal Expo 1967

Unfortunately, I don’t think there are any images of Xenakis’ polytope. But, perhaps on a more realistic budget (ahem), this is how I want festivals of technology and culture to be. Oh, and it’s never a bad idea to invite Poland.

As noted last night — with some very witty responses from incredulous readers — the record industry is now pushing for DRM on all radio. It’s a bad idea to begin with, and they’re bringing it up in a context in which it doesn’t even belond, negotiations on royalty rates, at a bad time — in the midst of negotiations that have broken down. I’d love to stop covering this issue, but the most recent round is too absurd to pass up. (Feel free to spread the word, since Congress demonstrated that, at least on a basic level, they’re listening to you.)

So, record industry, why is it you would want to push for a broken, proprietary, exorbitantly expensive to a problem that doesn’t exist as part of a discussion to which it’s entirely unrelated? The RIAA’s Senior Vice President of Government Relations (otherwise known as Grand Poo-bah of Politician Lobbying) Mitch Glazier was happy to explain to Technology Daily:

“Why wait until it is a big problem to start addressing it? There are available technologies in the marketplace to address this issue.”

Yes, indeed. Why wait for a problem to actually exist before legally mandating a solution? A technology exists! Therefore, you are obligated to use it — regardless of cost, whether it functions on the devices people use, whether better technologies exist, or whether there was even a problem in the first place. Which would you prefer: a record industry that works to solve today’s real problems, or one that creates massive, new problems to solve the problems they imagine might exist in the future?

Act now, fellow musicians — before Sound Recorder destroys music!

It’s amazing how complete and total crazies can suddenly wind up with the backing of organizations powerful enough to dictate the law. Witness the strange story of the “stream-ripping” scare, and how it somehow led to a push for mandatory, proprietary DRM on all Internet radio.

Gasp as the experience of bringing back Mark Twain’s ghost somehow inspires a company you’ve never heard of to build their own DRM for streams!

Recoil in horror at the evil pirating capabilities of Windows Vista and its Sound Recorder, as Microsoft earns billions — billions! — of dollars by encouraging people to steal music from radio streams!

Sigh with satisfaction at the realization that we can put a stop to these unprotected broadcasts of music forever, saving music itself in the process!

What? None of this sounds familiar? Bizarre, absurd, even illogical and out of touch with any recognizable reality, you say? You’re right, but alas …read on.

(See previous: Internet Radio Wins Temporary Delay, Possible Minimum Rate Break. You knew it wasn’t really going to be that easy, right? Apparently some of you missed my sense of irony. I was on vacation, so I wasn’t trying as hard to make my sarcasm apparent.)

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?