The Internet Radio Taxing Debacle is still in full swing, and now webcasters and going to do something about it.

On June 26, all webcasters are going to observe a day of silence to protest the royalty increase. All regular programming on thousands of internet radio stations will cease that day, in an attempt to show listeners what things will sound like after the ruling.

~Jaker

There’s a lot of technology hating going on right now. Internet taxes, email taxes, the absolute ban of violent games (subjective??). And now this:

If you’re a fan of Internet Radio, you’ve got just over a month to enjoy it.

Effective July 15, a new law goes into effect that will likely put most internet broadcasters out of business. And yes, our buddies over at the RIAA have plenty to do with it. Here’s the scoop:

Your typical terrestrial radio station sucks pays royalties to composers. It’s a flat fee, and it’s been like that for a long time. Performers do not get paid, because radio stations argue that airtime is like “free advertising.”

Your typical satellite radio station pays a flat rate of 7.5% of revenues to both the composers and the performers. I guess paying a premium for no commercials directly translates into “not free advertising” for the performers.

Your typical internet radio station has been paying a flat percentage of revenues to both the composers and performers. Until July 15. On that day, things change. Internet radio stations will have to pay a per-song, per-listener basis for royalties. It would be retroactive to January 2006. This will cause royalty rates to rise between 300 (for large webcasters) and 1,200 (for small webcasters) percent. Some broadcasters will be paying up to 100% or more of their revenue just for royalties.

What’s this mean for you? Well, if an internet radio station can’t make money to pay for things like their servers or bandwidth (because it’s all going to the RIAA), and if that radio station owes more than 150% of their revenues immediately (due to the fact that this bill includes all of 2006), there’s an amazingly high chance they will go out of business. Sure, a few may go to subscription-based broadcasting, a few may even block an US IP’s from connecting to their servers. But a majority will likely close it’s doors.

LAUNCHcast? Digitally Imported? Pandora? Slacker? Y! Music? SHOUTcast (and every radio station that’s a part of it)? AOL Music? XMRO? Sirius Player? Rhapsody? Live365? AccuRadio? Public Radio Online? ICEcast? Last.fm? Any station that plays music over the web?

~Jaker

—–

Here’s a brilliant idea from our good friends in the Government:

Let’s tax the internet.

There’s been a bill introduced that would allow for the collection of sales tax on Internet purchases. That would mean you’d have to pay extra sales taxes on anything you buy on the web.

There’s also been talk about taxing internet access. This means that simply using the internet would cause a tax to be incurred. Got an always-on connection (DSL/cable/etc.) ? Ouch..

Even worse, if this were to go into effect, it would likely start a downward spiral of other internet-based taxes, like getting taxed for every email you send.

Unfortunately, it appears as though these guys don’t get the fact that the internet is kind of worldwide, and they don’t necessarily own it. If you don’t understand how it works, leave it alone. If it ain’t broke, don’t “fix” it. And don’t be so friggin’ greedy.

It will be a sad day when I have to pay a tax for every blog post I make. Even worse, it will be a sad day when you have to pay a tax to read it…

~Jaker

—–

Bill Gates
Microsoft Corporation
Redmond, Washington

Re: Halo 3

Dear Mr. Gates:

As you know, the Federal Trade Commission has repeatedly found that games rated “Mature” by the video game industry-captured Entertainment Software Rating Board are routinely sold to kids under the age of 17 despite the age rating. The most recent failure rate of the ratings on “Mature” games, according to the FTC, is 42%. The entire rating system is a fraud, and “broken,” the latter description aptly provided by Senator Hillary Clinton.

As you also know, Lee Boyd Malvo trained on Microsoft’s Halo to further enable him to become the remarkably efficient “DC Beltway Sniper.” That was reported by NBC News at the time and was noted in Malvo’s criminal trial.

You appeared on CBS’ 60 Minutes II and rather revealing and usefully noted that “the cool thing about these games is that they transport you to a world you think is real.” Precisely. Capcom has recently disclosed to investors that your video game industry’s violent games, sold to children, pose a real hazard to the health of the industry. Right on.

The hyperviolent Microsoft Xbox 360 game Halo 3 is scheduled by your company for commercial release in September of this year. The Beta version that was released last week shows us all just how violent the game is and how inappropriate it is for play by anyone under 17, as the “Mature” rating it will surely receive indicates.

Here’s the deal, Mr. Gates: Either Microsoft undertakes dramatic, real steps, through its marketing, wholesale, and retail operations to assure that Halo 3 is not sold, via the Internet and in stores, directly to anyone under 17, or I shall proceed to make sure that Microsoft is held to that standard by appropriate legal means. I have done that before successfully as to Best Buy, and I shall do so again as to Microsoft and all retailers of Halo 3.

Regards, Jack Thompson

ha ha ha ha.

ha aha hahahahaha ha ha ha.

*breathes*

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

HAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahaHAHAHAhahahahaHAHAHA!

No Jack, here is the deal: Either stop your ridiculous anti-game tyraid, or you’ll loose even more of your already heavily-tainted reputation.

Is this the solution to our problems? If a child navigates to whitehouse[dot]com (if you don’t know what it is, don’t go to it) and a parent sees it, do we repremand the child by telling them not to visit that site (or, if I may be so bold, even go as far as being proactive about it and watch the child’s browsing habits or install a program that blocks said websites), or do we go out and sue the owners of whitehouse[dot]com as well as the ISP because the child viewed it?

You mentioned yourself that the rating system is broken. So, instead of proposing that the system be fixed, you instead go out and ensure that the only games that come to the market are intended for youngins’ under the age of 7.

If people started to swear more on TV with the rating of TV-14, and my V-Chip didn’t block TV-14 content, would I petition that the rating system be updated to reflect these changes? Or would I sue the crap out of the TV manufacturer, the manufacturer of the V-Chip, and the broadcasting company who let such content go on the air?

Jack, give it up buddy. You’re hopeless!

~Jaker

—–