 The numbers, I've heard that the ASCAP, BMI, and CSAC combined are like in a 3 to 5% of revenue range. And the carp rates as they were revised, the final version, is in the 100 to 200% of revenue range for Internet radio stations. It's crazy. And as one example goes, a public station, I think it was a WCPE, 400,000 listeners, pays like $1,000 a year for ASCAP, BMI, and CSAC. And I who run industrial underground with a max of 20 listeners would pay in the probably 11 to 1,500 per year range. And so if you look at what that's doing, you know, it's definitely a horrible regressive tax that affects small people, you know, and big ones alike, but it really kills off the small guys. The bottom line, oh, I'm sorry, go ahead. The question is who is responsible for enforcing the collection of Internet radio royalties? The answer is the RIAA is responsible. And the way that it's set up right now is that you are supposed to, or somebody who wants to get into webcasting, is supposed to send in a forum to the RIAA to let them know that you want to begin broadcasting. That should be your number one hint. Don't do that yet. If anybody's thinking about it, don't do it yet. And then what they do is they send you back a forum and they say, okay, you can begin broadcasting, but here's the list of record keeping requirements. This is what you need to supply to us. And this is basically what your royalty rate's going to be. And right now the way that it's set up, regardless of if you have any type of income at all, it's a minimum of $2,000 a year. Even if you're a hobbyist and you just do it purely for the love, it's a minimum of $2,000 a year. Or if 99% of your playlist was all independent music, 199 songs that you played every day were, let's say, from friends of yours that gave you their music to play. And just one song, even a day, or even one song a year, was RIAA content, it's still a $2,000 minimum. Have to fee. Other questions? I'm going to make a distinction here. There are the carp rates, which are what the Library of Congress decided. And those are 500 per year minimum, but they are so astronomically bad that they're going to force almost everybody into what's called the Small Webcast or Settlement Act deal, which is what Anne was referring to, which is a $2,000 minimum. But once again, though, that has a practical effect of cutting off small guys at the knees because it creates a huge barrier of entry. Where we stand right now is... Just do it one way or the other. Yeah. Where we stand right now is an organization. And I know I can say this here, and I couldn't say it probably in many other places, is that we're really encouraging our members into civil disobedience. We have just asked all of our members to refuse to pay because there is no way that this industry can grow into a viable, healthy industry under the constraints that the RIAA has placed on webcasters, and they know that. They're not stupid. It's not only about forcing an industry out of business. It's again about controlling the chain of content and distribution on the Internet, and they only want what's out there that belongs to their member labels. They don't want the independent content or people who could help that independent content to flourish and grow. Well, they're trying to move toward a licensing-type model where play equals pay. Subscription. We'll play with that from Microsoft with the DRM and all that, and it relates to that effort. Yeah, a subscription-based model. You had a question? Yeah. I'm sorry, essentially what? The question is, has anybody found on the terrestrial or Internet radio side a way to mask the number of listeners? That's okay. That's a good question. You can ask me that. The answer is, to this point, no. However, what we believe is there's a lot of things that we're going to be arguing in our case against the RIAA, and a lot of it goes to challenge laws that have already been standing. But the biggest challenge that we have in those arguments is to go back and point out the obvious, which is that if our congressional and senatorial leaders weren't in the pocket of the RIAA, a lot of this wouldn't be happening. So, I mean, people are looking at us, and I know that they're really hoping that we will succeed, and we have a lot of people in support in Congress and in Senate behind the scenes, because I'll just say this flat out. Basically, they don't have the balls to stand up and say, this has got to stop. So, we've decided that the buck needs to stop with us here. There's no reason a terrestrial radio station should have to mask their number of listeners. Yeah, we're not looking to hide here. We're standing and fighting because this is bullshit by my language. But, you know, there are people who talk about hiding through, like, period to period, a multicast. And the problem with multicast is try calling up your ISP and tell them you want a multicast. You'll get the what reaction or we don't support that. And as far as the period of period goes, I personally don't see how someone's going to make that work just because, like on a cable motor, your upstream bandwidth is so limited. You know, maybe you're capped at 128k, which is one high-quality listener, if that. And so, your multicasting software would have to take that into account in a way which is more clever than anything I've yet to see. But our point is, though, that we shouldn't have to hide. We shouldn't have to move overseas. We shouldn't have to stop our streams. We have to decide what we're going to do and we're going to fight this. The question is, how much trouble are we willing to get into and how much is our attorney going to bail us out of? Is that in a nutshell? And what can people who are willing to stand with us as far as the civil disobedience going to expect? Well, let me just say it to you this way so that you'll understand. Right now under the law, and we do have some leeway because of the way that the laws happen to fall, the old carp rates, the old copyright arbitration royalty panel rates that people could elect under expired December 31st of 2002. So for all intents and purposes, if you're an internet broadcaster right now, you cannot elect a carp payment because there's no rates that are in effect right now. There's nothing out there for you. The only thing that's out there for you is the SWSA, which is the deal that Chairman Sensenbrenner forced through last year with the RIAA, or one of the other deals like a broadcaster deal where there's a $10,000 minimum, or if you're a noncom. Now it's my understanding by speaking to the General Accounting Office last week that of the approximately, we estimate there's about 25,000 webcasters out there. Of the 25,000, there's only 35, 35 webcasters in the whole United States that have elected for one of these options. So right now basically our contention is that everybody who hasn't elected for an option is disobedient to what they're supposed to be electing. And one of the things that we're looking for when we first filed this lawsuit very shortly is to be able to go for some injunctive relief. Because the story behind the SWSA, as it happened last year, is that there were a group of people that were put in a room by Chairman Sensenbrenner and told to come to an agreement with the RIAA or he would write the agreement for them. This is part of what we're going to be bringing out in the lawsuit. And this is why we're encouraging our people to stand firm and try to stick together until we can get the lawsuit filed and seek that injunctive relief. As far as our webcasters are concerned, we're just encouraging people to keep the faith and know that soon we'll be filing the lawsuit and again hoping for that injunctive relief. As far as our regular internet radio listeners are concerned, we're begging them to please join us and help us do every single thing that we can to get Chairman Sensenbrenner under an ethics investigation. There hasn't been an ethics investigation in the House of the Senate since 1997. And I firmly believe now is the time, now is the place, and he's the perfect target. Does that answer your question? Give me if you're wanting a station, right? If you had to say it. The question is if you were broadcasting on Shotcast and you streamed a couple of songs, are you liable for the fee? That's a very interesting question. And I'm going to answer you in the best way that I can right now. And there's some legal reasons why I can't give you the whole answer. Shotcast is, of course, part of AOL. AOL is, of course, part of Time Warner, and Warner Records is one of the RIA's big five. So the answer is that technically if you were anybody else and you weren't broadcasting on Shotcast, yes, you would probably be liable for those fees. But if you look at the RIA right now and you look at the list of ISPs that they've served P2P subpoenas on, you won't see AOL on that list. So our contention is that there's something a little bit stinky going on. Other questions? Oh, what is the RIA? Is that getting the question? Besides the Evil Devil? It's the Recording Industry Association of America, which is actually a fallacy because four of the major five labels right now are all foreign corporations. They're not U.S.-based corporations. But that's what the acronym stands for. Yeah, and they claim they have something like 1,700 members, but the vast majority of those are owned by other record companies that are part of the big five. So the actual membership is far smaller than they would have you believe. Yes. Oh, the question was are there not First Amendment issues? There's actually First and Fifth Amendment issues here. And yes, we intend to argue whatever the hell we can argue. I mean, we're lucky in the fact that the RIA has been so audacious and so brazen and so, at this point, I guess I have to say in my opinion, stupid that they've left us a great trail of, as our antitrust attorney says, it's an antitrust attorney's dream. He can't believe that they would actually come out in print and say these things. So yes, there's First Amendment issues, Fifth Amendment issues, and we intend to explore all of them because we just believe that the bottom line for them is that they want to control the content and the distribution in any way that they can, and that's why they're going after P2P file-sharing so heavily. And of course, webcasting. Oh, I wait to add more to that. A group of webcasters, most of which are webcaster-aligned members, filed a lawsuit against the car parades last year. That's called the 1244 appeal, and they did get into the First Amendment issues with that. And if you want to see me afterwards, I can get your email address and send you copies of the PDFs because they've not been published widely reported by the media. Yeah, it's amazing to us that 1244 appeal was actually filed against the Librarian of Congress just this past June, June 20th, and yet nobody's covered this at all. I would think personally that it's a really big deal if there's a group of webcasters, four of the five of which are webcaster-aligned members, that are actually suing the Librarian of Congress, but the mainstream media has kept it very, very quiet. It's interesting to us. Even the specialty press is not reported. They do cover Internet radio. Sure. The question is, can we explain what 1244 means? 1244 is just the number of the appeal, and that's in the Ninth District Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C. right now. Yeah, I think there are like five separate lawsuits filed and they consolidate them into one. And just to give you an idea how bad the process is, even the RIAA is on this appeal as well, but for different reasons than us, obviously, they want the rates to be higher. We want them to be lower, of course. Your question? The question is, have we looked to the FCC for any remedy? Well, I can answer that for you and tell you that was it last week, maybe 10 days ago, I wrote a letter to Chairman Powell, last week Brian tells me, that started with, dear Mr. Powell, you scared the hell out of me. So we're not real hopeful right now of any remedy from the FCC. Our intention right now is to continue to press more publicly and to try to negate the information that's out there by Chairman Powell saying that the internet is wide open so that television doesn't matter consolidation. The question is, don't P2P and webcasters fall under some of the documents that the FCC has right now? The answer is, nobody really knows. And that's the truth. A lot of this is changing and growing so much, let me give you an example. I'm always trying to look for ways that we can piss off the RIAA. So I really am. So this morning I came up with two that I thought were pretty ingenious. Number one was to see if there was any way that we could get artists to challenge the RIAA or to challenge their labels in regard to the royalty collection process. For example, if you're a major name artist and you don't want the RIAA to be suing your listeners, your listener, the average customer out there that's downloading a P2P file, isn't going to think, oh, okay, Sony Records is coming after me. They're going to think, let's use Michael Jackson. They're going to think, okay, Michael Jackson is suing me. But it isn't Michael Jackson that's suing. And the reason is because even though Michael Jackson owns his composer copyrights and his artistic copyrights, his recording contract reads that the record label themselves has the right to collect the royalties. So part of our thought process would be, is there any way that we can get some of these major artists involved in a lawsuit against the labels and say, look, you're damaging our reputation by your enforcement tactics? So not to skirt your question, it's just that a lot of these things are so new. A lot of these areas of law have not been tried yet. And it's our intention to try to push the envelope and try every single one of them that we can. Go ahead. Yes, actually I do. The question is, do we have anything else that you can do to piss off the RIAA? I wish I would have had it with me today and I tried to bring it. We announced a campaign the other day. It's a membership drive for Webcaster Alliance and it's called Stick It to the RIAA. And what we did is we created a little voodoo doll. It comes complete with a little pin, a little record label in the middle of its chest and it actually has a little subpoena in its hand that's made out to digital downloader. So, you know, while we kind of don't really advocate voodoo as a general practice, it might not hurt to like order one and stick it a few times. You know, I think really the main thing for this is this. The RIAA has an accomplice in what they're doing and the accomplice is the legislators that take the payments from them. And until we can stop that process, until we can identify the people that are pocketing the money to make the laws favorable to the RIAA and unfavorable to the public, we don't have a chance. We think there's no hope of any legislative solution. Well, it's not Brian that we don't think there's no hope. It's that Chairman Sensenbrenner told 12 people last October who are willing to testify in our lawsuit that if they did not sign the agreement with the RIAA, there would be no legislative relief. So if the chairman of the legislative committee looks you in the face and says, you don't have a choice but to sign because I'm not going to do a damn thing for you, we know there's no relief. The question is what about petitions and letter writing to bring it to the attention of Congress? That's exactly what we're asking for. We have a campaign right now that we're running and we're asking for an ethics investigation on Chairman Sensenbrenner. And the beauty of it is, again, getting back to their just flagrant disregard for the law, back in January Chairman Sensenbrenner took an $18,000 trip to Thailand and Taiwan to try to talk to them about copyright laws. I'm sorry? I won't say it. You said that. And so he opened the door for this ethics investigation. Like Brian likes to say when he's talking to me, Al Capone was a murderer, but they got him for tax evasion. Yeah, and more about that trip. He went there as a paid lobbying trip. And if you go to our website, webcasterlions.com, we link to the AP article that talked about that and it quotes the guy from RAA. And he says, yeah, we wanted them to lobby the president of these two countries to tighten up their copyright laws. And that's the express purpose of the trip. And that is against the House Rules on Travel, which says that if you're traveling for official business, which this was, yeah, so lobbying for the RAA is official business for the U.S. government. If you're traveling on official business, you cannot do that on private funds. And while that may sound minor, while yes, it happens all the time, this is something we need to attack them on just to make the point to them that your support in the RAA will come with a cost. Right, the point is that yes, it does happen all the time, but that doesn't make it right. And we need you to help us to bring that to people's attention. Yeah, the question is, does anybody attack the DMCA on the grounds of the loss of content for a digital copy? And the answer is no, not yet, but that's one of the things that we're looking for. We're actually looking to propose a bit rate licensing program. And what I've done is I've gone through sites like iTunes and Rhapsody Again, when I say to you that it's my goal to piss off the RIA and I tell you these things, you'll understand that it really truly is. Our contention is that the DMCA says digital copy and the reason that these rates should be charged is because it's a perfect digital copy. And they have gone through, the RIA has gone through and convinced these senators and legislators and congressmen that oh my god, it's digital, it's perfect. And we're saying, are you stupid? It's not digital, it's digital. Yes, that's the only thing we can agree with you on. It's not perfect by any stretch. And so one of the other things that we're considering is actually a class action lawsuit against companies like Rhapsody because if you go to their website you'll notice that it says digital copy but it does not disclose anywhere. You know, the bit rate that the copy that you're downloading is encoded at. And so one of the things that we want to point out is that yes, it's a digital copy but when you actually compress it and replay it, you have what, about 10% of the content left. So who the hell is going to, if you compare it to a book, would you go to a bookstore and buy a book with nine out of every 10 pages missing? No, I think there'd be a lot of people that would be pretty pissed off about that. If I can make a comment about the DMCA it defines internet radio as not a transmission but a copying process. And the argument of course is that your player, whether Winamp or whatever, creates a temporary ephemeral copy in the process of playing it for you. Yes, it does and yes, it's gone after you hear it but that's their basis for calling it a copying process, not a transmission. That's a little fuzzy but I can still read it just fine. Well, and the question is that getting into a discussion of is the quality of an MP3 acceptable listening versus buying a CD. Our contention is that yes, it's become the standard of norm for listening. However, we don't believe that the RIAA should be entitled to a collect royalty rates that are set at exactly the same, if not a little bit higher, is what you would get for if you went out and you bought that CD quality transmission. I as a listener think 128K sucks. I mean, I encode it either my older stuff is encoded at 320VBR and the newer stuff I use 256 constant rate and I broadcast it at 96K so there's not one but two levels of degradation going on there and I can tell a difference between 128 and 160 and 224. And again, our whole point is to not contend that MP3 files aren't good for certain purposes. I personally tend to believe they're much better for advertising purposes. I kind of think it's like downloading software for information purposes. But I'm not trying to say that MP3 isn't acceptable to some people. I'm just trying to say we think there's another option and that option comes under bit rate licensing. Right, the suggestion was that we look at the ringtones issue that's out there right now for some legal help and that's part of too what we're looking at as far as structuring our arguments. I mean, are these copies? Are they derivatives? How far does the quality actually have to go if it really, truly can't be considered a quote-unquote perfect digital copy anymore? The psycho-incoustic coning? Yeah, if people listen and can go, that's perfect. Any sound engineer sitting in front of the gut that sounds like shit. It doesn't sound anything like it originally does. It almost takes away almost all stereo there at the end. It was originally in the song. You need big name people and people to address and adjust the entire industrial or electronic dance foundation. They love the fact that people stream their music and get to get it out there because that's the way they advertise. No one plays dance music on the radio. It goes down to the 100,000 people parties in LA or the big parties in Texas. No one goes to those or listens to the music that is on the radio because that's all like crap in the house or like shut things up. No one wants to listen. Yeah, basically the question was addressing the actual audio quality and I will tell you that we do have a lot of audio experts, professors from several universities across the United States that are willing to help us address those issues. And again, the areas that we're looking at right now we're not necessarily looking to make any one argument. We're looking to make a number of arguments which are that the bottom line is the RIA is trying to A, just as you said, control the content and distribution on the Internet to keep other viable alternatives of music from flourishing unless it's a member of theirs and B, to look at what they're really trying to collect royalty on and is it something that actually is worth that much value. It's all about establishing the value of the content. When we say they're trying to restrict the variety of content we're not speculating, they have testified to this fact in front of Congress, I'm sorry, the Library of Congress in the car hearings. They have said that they want market consolidation that there are too much variety of music on the Internet that a station like mine which plays a targeted genre will satisfy a listener's need and therefore they will not go out and buy those CDs. They've said all these things. Other questions? The question is, does satellite radio fall under anything like regular terrestrial radio would fall under and does that help or hurt webcasting? The answer is an interesting one. The answer is that the RIA has negotiated a private agreement that they will not open up for anyone to take a look at with the satellite radio industry. And the reason is if you look at the satellite radio industry you'll see that several of the major labels are invested in satellite radio. So does it help us? It helps us to go and prove monopoly and collusion and anti-competitive practices. I don't think that it really hurts us at this point. However we intend to fight vigorously for our regular terrestrial radio members who want to broadcast over the Internet and are constrained by the satellite radio agreements. So in other words the satellite radio people do pay royalties but we don't know how much. Well we can speculate how much. But terrestrial radio does not pay royalties and even on the digital broadcast for terrestrial radio they are exempt from paying royalties for that as well. Unless they broadcast over the Internet. So in other words if a terrestrial radio station broadcasts digitally over the air they pay nothing. If they broadcast over the Internet they're in the same boat that we are. For the Internet only portion of course. I like that idea. That was a suggestion about pissing up the RIA to have everybody do like a mass mailing is what you're saying. A mass mailing or a mass faxing. You know what though I think you should do that to Congress because the RIA is a trade association. They are paid by the record companies to piss people off and they don't care what you think. The record companies though I think they do care. So rather than running the RIA write Sony and say you know what you people are assholes I'm not buying your stuff anymore. One of the things that we were actually looking at as an organization when we get a little closer to Christmas was to do a campaign that's called I'm not a pirate, don't label me. And to encourage people rather than going out and buying like a CD to fax Sony and say hello I was going to buy so and so CD but I'm going to take my $20 and spend it elsewhere so screw you. We really need to make those kind of concerted efforts but again the only way we're going to get to Congress is to remove the obstacles that we have and obstacle number one on the House side is Chairman Sensenbrenner and obstacle number two as you all know on the Senate side is Orrin Hatch who wants to blow up everybody's computers who by the way interestingly is a composer and does receive royalties under his composer agreement so I think there's a little conflict of interest there too but nobody's looked into it and I've had a lot of people say and I think you're really paranoid and you've got all this stuff going on in your head about conspiracy theories but I'll tell you what the day that we announced that we were actually going to sue the RIAA this is no lie in about 10 hours I received 150 emails from people that said please call me I have a story to tell you you won't believe it but I promise you it's true and I can show you documented evidence and I called all 150 of these people and a lot of this evidence is really what's going to go into making up the lawsuits that we're looking at in the future it's a damn scary thing it really is and as far as protests go I'm not a big fan of the online you know sign-of-form type thing because as an example when the ACOPS thing came out recently which is where they want to make you know peer-to-peer felony I was on slashed out and 1700 people posted you know complaints about that I'm not sure many thousands are more reddit but you know what your congressman does not read slash dot I hate to tell you this so if you want to reach them you need to call them you need to fax them you need to email them and preferably call or fax because these people are pretty backwards and they don't think email is real communication what they need to hear is that you are a registered voter in their district and you are pretty damn concerned about the fact that Chairman Tensenbrenner is controlling everything that goes through on copyright law and you know for a fact that he's in the pocket of the RIAA and if he's not then let's put him through an ethics investigation and let's find out if he's not that's great but he's the one that walked into that territory and we've had a lot of people that have come up to us and said there's a lot of evidence that we can give you if you can get a strong grassroots movement going with this we can't do anything now so where we are is it's a chicken and the egg we need to continue pursuing it as much as possible but we can't do that without help from people like you other questions? I can't tell you the exact date because my attorney will kill me but I can just tell you it will be very soon it will be soon and not like Doom 3 soon but sooner than that I can tell you before the 15th of August I can tell you that yes before the new RIAA puppet comes in I'm sorry the question was when are we filing the lawsuit and the answer is I can I think I can say with reasonable certainty before the 15th of August you have a question? yeah the answer is do we have something set up on our website similar to what the EFF has as far as action alerts the answer is that yes we do have something similar we don't have the same system because that system costs $19,000 we don't have $19,000 right now to buy it but if you do go to our website we do have action alert buttons we do have a membership emailing list that we send out we do have a forum set up there we do have a way to look up your representative's name it's a little bit more cumbersome than that beautiful $19,000 system but it works right now so other questions? the question is have we considered moving workingwithmoveon.org yes we have we have actually several associations that we're working with the challenge that that we have right now is two fold number one there are several organizations out of Washington and I'll just say several that really want to work with us and are supporting us behind the scenes but they feel that they can't come out in a public way and support us in this effort against Chairman Sensenbrenner unless it grows with their calling some legs because they're afraid that if they do step forward and support us right now they're going to lose their ability to testify in front of Congress a conversation that I had a few days ago was what the hell good does it do you to testify in front of Congress if they're not going to listen to you anyway it's a moot point you go in you sit down you say what you have to say and you walk out and you get what? no results so you stand up with us and you say there's something very wrong here something needs to be done with it and perhaps take a chance on changing it and you know we have a lot of behind the scenes support we really do we have a lot of people who have said I have to remain in the shadows until we can really see a good public movement going on this do I believe that people will step forward then? yes I do because everybody loves a winner right now we're the underdogs we're the ones out there with excuse my French our asses hanging in the wind and everybody's looking at little webcaster alliance who the hell are you guys you don't have the money of DEMA you don't have the membership of DEMA Yahoo, Microsoft, AOL how do you think you can change the world and the answer is because number one we're right we really do believe that's going to go a long way and number two because we know that the American public the masses of people like all of you that are here believe the same way that we do and it's just getting enough voices together to convince Congress to make that change there's a massive crime that went on here a deal went through congress the congressman told these people who had to negotiate these people negotiated under extreme pressure what was supposed to be a private deal became a public deal in terms of the the small webcaster settlement act and these people signed it were far from innocent we're talking some of the larger stations like don't name them don't go there they'll be named in the lawsuit the people who signed that knew what they were doing and part of what they did was to raise a high minimum with the effect that they were aware of to drive the rest of us out of business in antitrust law it's called raising rivals costs and what they did was they deliberately set the barrier of entry so high so they knew that the majority of the smaller webcasters the hobby casters wouldn't be able to afford that minimum fee they knew what they were doing a lot of other people know about this but there's not been an organized way for them to testify and bring us out in the lawsuit and what we're doing is providing that form and we're going to have some very interesting testimony coming up pretty soon other questions Brian what did I miss I said what did I miss ooh, good question there's a question right there okay, I'm sorry, yes well, I thought about wearing my Ag Vorbis shirt today which I'll be wearing tomorrow probably the question was what about Ag Vorbis and let me just interject really quick one of our founding members, Bob Pullman worked on that original program so we're very aware if I could make some comments about the technology what we're doing here is technology neutral it doesn't matter whether you're running mp3s or wheel or shoutcast if you stream of Vorbis you're still liable to pay the royalties well, you know, we're saying mp3 when we're referring to the p2p file sharing as far as the actual internet radio streaming is concerned because I love Java so much I actually try to press the people that come to me toward Java technology because it's you know, I think it's very ubiquitous and we don't have to worry about the download problem I personally don't care what technology or what you prefer most of the market prefers mp3 and as you're right, it's not a royalty free technology and Fraunhofer who does the licensing for that or just Philp to the licensing but in any case, they have talked about charging us on a per song basis and they've made that threat but they've yet to follow through on it and so if that does happen I think you're going to see a very rapid migration to Vorbis or some other format but the fact of the matter is they've yet to implement that threat and most people have players that play mp3 and as a broadcaster I have to make a decision well, I want people to be able to hear me and right now I stream mp3 which you can hear on Linux with XMMS Apple iTunes plays it you know, WinApp plays it a variety of other players play it too so that's individual broadcaster decision but you know, the webcaster Lions does not advocate particular technology that's an individual broadcaster we don't care what you do well, you have a good point there and I think the market at some point will change if it's a problem because right now if you buy an mp3 player you may not be paying a royalty but the company that makes it has to pay a substantial royalty for that even if you download something free like musicman's jukebox they're probably changed since then but I know that Microsoft with the original the net show tools they paid like 10 million to make that so we can download that for free so there's big bucks in mp3s and at some point when it becomes a problem I think we'll move on I think we have about 5 minutes left any other questions? Brian what do we miss and wrap up? I'm not sure I'm really nervous so I'm a bad speaker which is why Anne's doing all the talking well I guess then I can say in closing if any of you really care about music on the internet and I'm not just going to say internet radio music I'm going to say P2P file sharing anything that has to do with music distribution we encourage you to become a webcast or alliance member we ask you to please work with us in every way that you can if you have friends, family, anyways organizations, websites that you can help us get the word out so that we can try to cut off this problem at the root which is on the legislative side try to get some reforms and get things moving back into a consumer friendly area rather than an area that is controlled by monopolistic corporations like the five that make up the RIAA thank you all very much for being here we really appreciate your time and Brian will be available after the talk if you have any questions