About a week ago, I fired up last.fm as I sat down to work, and it started playing a station "based on music similar to Belle and Sebastian." After a few songs I already knew and loved from Flaming Lips and New Pornographers, it played Sleeping Lessons off the new album from The Shins, followed immediately by Neighborhood #2 by The Arcade Fire. I've been a fan of The Shins since about three days before they broke out thanks to the Garden State soundtrack, but I hadn't given the new album much of a listen, other than previewing it bit by bit on iTunes, and I was frankly unimpressed in 30 second increments. I've heard the damn kids today go on and on about how I should listen to The Arcade Fire, but I hadn't heard an entire song from them up to that point.

I don't listen to much broadcast radio any more, but when I do, I don't hear these bands or bands like them; I hear the same Red Hot Chili Peppers songs over and over again, and whatever boring bullshit is currently being force-fed to listeners by the record labels and their partners in crime at Clear Channel.

However, based on hearing these songs, I plan to buy both these albums now, because I really, really liked them. The Shins and The Arcade Fire just made sales, earned themselves another unpaid marketer, and probably sold at least two concert tickets, all because I heard them on the Internet.

Sadly, the RIAA doing its best to ensure that, in a little over two months, you and I won't have opportunities like this to discover new music, and indie online radio stations in the United States will be as rare as an hour of so-called Alternative radio programming without Linkin Park. Last month, the Copyright Royalty Board adjusted the rates online radio stations will have to pay for the privilege of sharing music with potential customers to such astronomical heights, it will drive pretty much all of them out of business. What constitutes astronomical? How about 60%-300% of their revenue in royalties? Want some context? Satellite pays 5%-7%, and over-the-air broadcasters pay nothing.

Just so everyone understands what's at stake here, and who is affected by this, I strongly encourage you all to read Can You Hear Me Now? from bit-tech.net:

He makes an important point: for music nerds, technology has allowed anyone with a passion for music to share that passion with like-minded listeners. It's allowed them to effectively make endless mixtapes and play them for the world. For artists -- especially indie artists -- Internet radio is the best promotional outlet they have for their music this side of a friend handing you a CD and saying, "dude, you have to listen to this!"

So why the hell is the RIAA trying so hard to destroy that? Because the RIAA (which is essentially the major labels) has spent a lot of time and a lot of money building a monopoly with a few media conglomerates, and it's been very profitable for them all for decades.

This effort to wipe out independent online radio has nothing to do with protecting artists, and everything to do with protecting a status quo that supports a very few top 40 acts at the expense of everyone else. In their effort to protect their outdated business model and insanely corrupt relationship with a few broadcasters, the RIAA is happy to prevent their artists from having a magnificent way to reach potential customers who will buy albums, merchandise, and concert tickets.

For the audience, this is about choice: The airwaves are supposedly owned by the American people, and licensed out to broadcasters for use. (Stop laughing. It's true.) So if we, the people, own the airwaves, who told Clear Channel that they could dictate what got played on the radio all over the nation? Who told Clear Channel that they could fill the airwaves with lowest common denominator crap and empty-headed, passionless DJs who read from a script? Who told Clear Channel that they could force out everyone else and ensure that the radio really, really sucks? I know that I wasn't consulted, that's for sure.

Luckily, there's been online salvation for people like me. We can listen to Internet radio because we're bored to death with the same handful of songs repeated ad nauseam on the radio. We're tired of a few giant media companies jamming the same stuff into our ears over and over again, and we want to tune into a specific genre of music without a lot of repeats (SomaFM and radioio.) We want to listen to music that's being played by people who are passionate about what they're playing (Radio Paradise.) We want to discover new music based on stuff we already like (Pandora and last.fm.) In other words, We want something different than Clear Channel, which is nearly impossible if we don't have access to Internet radio. Some of us even want to create our own stations, not for money but for the love of music, and the Internet has made that possible, too. It pisses me off that the music industry is working so aggressively to take that all away, and it breaks my heart that I may never have the opportunity to make a long distance death dedication after coming out of a goddamn uptempo record, man.

But there is some hope for us all. There is a bill before Congress, with bi-partisan support, to give 'net broadcasters a break and set their royalty rates equal with satellite radio. Online broadcasters have gotten organized, and are currently meeting with members of congress to plead their (and our) case. The new royalty rates, originally scheduled to take effect on May 15, won't take effect until July 15, presumably to give Congress some time to really investigate this issue, and maybe give the RIAA some time to reconsider alienating yet another large swath of their potential customer base.

Stop laughing. It's . . . well, it's not true, but it should be.

Is Don on the phone?


Wil Wheaton has two new albums.