Slashdot Mirror
National Association of Broadcasters Sues RIAA
LordNimon writes "Someone is suing the RIAA and not the other way around! CNET is reporting that the National Association of Broadcasters has sued the RIAA to prevent them from forcing radio stations to pay special royalities if they stream their signals over the Internet. Apparently, the stations don't pay the RIAA for normal broadcast, so they don't understand what's so special about Internet broadcasts. " Interesting twist - I expect to see TV stations and affiliates getting into the same arguement over Internet streaming - sorta an extension of the whole iCrave thing.
On another note - I just thought of this - does the DMCA make broadcasting concerts over HDTV illegal or difficult, because it's digital quality? Just a thought.
"The romance of Silicon Valley was about money - excuse me, about changing the world, one million dollars at a time."
Visit
... an internet radio broadcaster might be able to avoid paying the higher royalties by licensing and setting up a small, low power radio station out in the middle of nowhere, and broadcasting the program to the local cows.
Cool concept! How about Montana, which has a dearth of Techno and Rave stations? And just think of the lucky cows in KMOO's reach, able to bop to the trance beats of euro sounds!
They can take our milk, they can turn us into hamburgers, they can herd us, but they can never take our Freedom!
Will in Seattle
Apparently, the stations don't pay the RIAA for normal broadcast, so they don't understand what's so special about Internet broadcast
This argument is rather contrived: what's different (at least from the RIAA's point of view) is that this broadcast stream leads to perfect copies. Yes, you could record tapes (even CDs) from radio broadcasts, but they'd be contaminated by radio propagation and other analog noise. Whereas with the net, you get bit-perfect copies, which are essentially trivial to capture and propagate...
Now if the radio stations promised to wireless broadcast the music across their studio, then re-digitize it and stream it on the net, I'm sure the RIAA would drop its suit at once... So the "we don't understand what the difference is" is clearly specious. Now should they bend over and let the RIAA screw them, or should they stand up for their freedom to broadcast using the best available technology? That's a different issue, and I'm happy that the NAB appear to be showing some spine, at least for now...
"I will take the Ring," he said, "though I do not know the way."
Then this odd thing happened with the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) -- for the first time ever, a public performance right in audio recordings (versus just the composition) was granted to record labels for webcasts. A number of members of NAB were, IMHO, quite happy, because this is going to make it considerably more difficult for webcasters to survive. (The royalty rate has yet to be decided, but last I checked, the RIAA proposed a figure of 45% of gross sales as the appropriate figure to be paid.)
It wasn't until they realized that this would really affect them too that they got up in arms. So now we have the bizarre case of them trying to claim exemption from any Internet stream that is also broadcasted over the air: punish them, not us! All of the sudden they want to be special, without realizing that they've stumbled headlong into the RIAA's trap to reclaim those royalties they've been lusting after (perhaps with good cause) for the last five-odd decades.
Of course this brings up some interesting issues is the exception is accepted: what if I'm broadcasting music over cellular? Does that count? What if I'm using a satellite downlink? If my customers are using micro-FM broadcasting units? Methinks the law is going to get particularly hairy with regards to these technologies (a general truism, perhaps!).
David E. Weekly
David E. Weekly
Code / Think / Teach / Learn
h4x0r for
RIAA is messing up big time by treating one medium different than another. On one hand, a radio station takes a song and beams it out to 50,000 listeners, and on the other hand takes the very same song and streams it out to 50,000 listeners. There's no fundamental difference.
Because the internet is new, and software still relatively new, people want to treat them differently from the old media. But their purposes are the same. Internet broadcasts must operate under the same rules as EM broadcasts. Software should have the same copyright laws as books. Websites the same as newspapers.
Because good old-fashioned classic copyright is sufficient for software, the DMCA just creates injustice. On the music side, treating internet and EM differently only creates a loss for RIAA. By doing what their doing, even if they win the case, they end up forcing station to one format or another, ultimately limiting the song's audience. Either charge no royalties or charge for all broadcasts, internet or EM.
If you base law on fundamental principles then its application can be applied to everywhere, and understood by everyone.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
If the NAB is really so pissed off at the RIAA, then why is it that they play so little music that doesn't come from the RIAA? I do understand that the RIAA promotes music heavily so it has a fan base that the radio stations can count on. But would it hurt them to take a chance and start playing more of their local bands that aren't under the control of the RIAA? This is what I can't figure out--why doesn't the NAB encourage it's members to fight back by playing more non-RIAA music and helping promote it themselves? I can understand why a lone radio station would not want to do this--they count on all the promotional stuff they get from RIAA labels. But if they acted in concert (no pun) couldn't they hit the RIAA pretty hard and at the same time reduce their dependence
numb
Anyone ever listened to live streaming audio over the net? The quality of FM radio is usually MUCH better than some crappy 56k stream being compressed on the fly. Besides, there's still gonna be some jack ass DJ talking over you favorite songs, who the hell wants a "perfect" copy of that?
I suppose that if I wanted to, I could redirect an internet brodacast to a file, kill the ads, and listen at my pleasure.
.wav, .mp3, ...), or behavior (to share or not to share).
You mean, kind of like you do with a VCR when you're not going to be home for that season premier of Deep Space Nine?
You can do precisely the same thing with a hauppauge card and a traditional radio broadcast, namely record any broadcast you like with no appreciable quality loss between what your ears hear the first time (listening to the live braodcast) and the second time (listening to the recording on your hard drive, assuming a lossless storage format).
The digital vs. analogue argument is simple misdirection, an effort for entities like the MPAA and the RIAA to gain even more draconian authority over the products they sell us, and how we are permitted to use them in our own homes, using the spectre of "perfect" recording capabilities by the masses as a boogeyman.
Casual users have had an effective means of making "perfect" copies for 20 years now, namely cassette tapes. For most poeple's purposes these constitute "perfect" copies, and are used (and traded) as such. The internet hasn't changed that fact appreciably, even if it has made trading a little more convinient.
Big time commercial pirates do benefit, but then, they too have had the means of making "perfect" copies for nigh unto 20 years, using prosumer and professional studio and CD pressing equipment.
The laws prior to the DMCA were more than sufficient to deal with both, and still are. Big time (or even small time) commercial pirates get busted, have their assets seized, spend time in jail, and so on. Casual users share music and, as often as not, go ahead and buy the CD anyway, either for convinience sake, as a collector, as gifts, or simply because they want the the cover art along with the music.
Whether someone records a song (complete with DJ talkover) or other braodcast from traditional radio or from internet radio makes absolutely no difference, either in terms of the final storage medium (tape vs. hard drive), format (analogue,
It is only a few technophiles like us that really get excited about DIGITAL storage -- everyone else is perfectly happy with lossy mp3 format, lossy cassette tapes, and lossy VHS, and no amount of posturing on the part of the RIAA or the MPAA is going to change that.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
If the NAB wins, than they may have cleared the way for "transmitting" other files. Your only left dealing with semantics on what constitutes music, which is nothing more than data. In other words, if they win, we could transmit all sorts of useful data with their same arguement. Wish them the best.
Of course, that's another reason why it sucks so bad. Not only does it make it illegal to fairly use the media you buy, it incorporates new rules on digital media. That's why they put in the Digital Millenium Copyright act, so they could set up special copyrights for digital media. What you fear, you try to destroy.
It's about control (because control gets you $$$), Lobbying is an investment.
Here's a good link that outlines some its special provisions, (sarcasm) note how many of them are there to protect consumers (/s>
--
+&x
..How about we spend less fucking time worrying about lawsuit after lawsuit after lawsuit and go back to having fun?
None of these lawsuits affect us. The RIAA doesnt affect me. The UCITA doesnt affect me. A lawsuit against Yahoo doesn't affect me. A lawsuit against MP3.com doesn't affect me. None of this shit affects me, because I, and we, will all be able to get our hands on what we want for free, anyway. Laws do not and cannot prevent piracy of any media. Laws -encourage- piracy. Half of you people fail to realize there are piracy groups in existance that are older than you are!
I've said it before, and i'll say it again. The damn cat is already out of the bag. No amount of lawsuits will put the damn cat back in it.
For crying out loud, quit worrying, people. If I see another damn RIAA/UCITA/Napster/MP3 lawsuit story on Slashdot i'm going to puke.
Bowie J. Poag
Bowie J. Poag
Absolutely, but it takes years of classes to learn the proper technique of crawling on your belly, the etiquitte of bottom feeding, and blowing smoke up people's butts to make a good lawyer.
Steve's Computer Service, Hobbs, NM