Slashdot Mirror
AudioGalaxy Reaches Settlement With the RIAA
blanu writes: "Today AudioGalaxy reached an out-of-court settlement with the RIAA.
To sum up the settlement, AudioGalaxy will pay the RIAA a lot of money and from now only provide songs for which the copyright holder has specifically given permission."
Now that a copyright infringement suit has been settled, maybe the RIAA could agree to stop its illegal actions of price gouging and acting as a trust? And maybe they could stop bribing politicians as well?
What about the MP3's I'm sharing of my music?
I suspect it's going to be a bit of a pain in the ass to convince Audiogalaxy to allow me to share my band's music over their service. How can I satisfy them that I'm truly the copyright holder? If it's easy enough to make it painless, what's to keep others from attempting to get their favourite artist's music unprotected using the same technique?
And thus, this sad chapter of history has ended. No longer can rufians download music on the internet, making the delivery channels of CD, tape, and vinyl the only channels, ensuring that the copyright holders recieve their fair compensation. The brief period of anarchy is at last over, likely forever.
Or, possibly, just possibly, decentralized services with no way to be shut down are still around, and will always be around, and the RIAA is trying to close the cell doors after the inmates have already taken over the prison.
Well, good luck to them. As they kill those services that have any sort of control mechanism in place, all that will remain is those services that they can't control, which are precisely those services which can't be used to make money for the publishing industry. What may have taken a decade of evolution from central-controlled P2P to fully-distributed P2P is being encouraged to take place in a couple of years. The dinosaurs aren't just being replaced by mammals, they're encouraging them to do it as quickly as possible.
Audiogalaxy, as proficient user, was lightyears ahead of Napster and way way beyond Kazaa & the crowd. When you had it working for you, it would provide the most amazing music sent TO you by groups of people with similar interests, guaranteed to be good. Their biggest liability was that they didnt have the money to compete with the RIAA. They're not in violation of anything besides listing whats on your hard drive; but legally, it would take millions to prove a simple point. All they ever sold was AG t-shirts. God bless them for trying; music will be as free as language (look at us reading without paying $$ for it) some day. No executive deserves 500k/yr for making children behave like Britney Spears. Fuck 'em for being soulless, immoral and soon to be dead.
In case you haven't been paying attention
THESE MOFOS ARE GOING TO TRY AND DO THIS TO THE ENTIRE INTERNET
Filtering of all content, on the backbone, to remove anything without DRM flags indicating it's OK to transmit is both technically feasible and completely coherent with increasing government demands to be back in control of the internet.
Welcome to the future of the internet: we call it television, and we'll tell you what you can see!
Hexayurt - open source refugee shelter,
"The message is clear - there is no place on the Internet for services that exploit creators' work without fair compensation." --Edward Murphy, NMPA
.001% of the dollars on an executive's quarterly report. That's the value of music, kids.
Of course. The recording industry would much rather let the record labels, executives, managers and lawyers do the exploiting of musicians, as always.
"This is a victory for everyone who cares about protecting the value of music," said Hilary Rosen, Chairman and CEO of the RIAA.
And by value, she means dollars, not musical or technical merit. But she doesn't mean the dollars spent in "payola" fashion to radio directors who decide which songs are put into rotation in key markets (and you thought your phone calls and emails picked which songs got played)... nor does she mean the dollars spent on flawed copy-protection schemes. She means
I'm left to wonder; where's the AG press release?
But the crux of the settlement is that in order for AG to let you download a song, they supposedly have to be given explicit permission by the copyright owner to allow the song to be traded through AG - whereas before, they had a model where it was up to the copyright holder to instruct them to block the song.
Bottom line then is that AG may once again become a good resource for well known material from popular bands (as someone might bother to let them trade this stuff for some type of fee), it will never again be a good resource for obscure stuff - old songs from less popular band's back catalogs, live radio appearances etc. - the copyright holders will never bother to give AG permission to allow that stuff to be swapped. In the end the Big Brother that is the RIAA and their DMCA cronies have dealt yet another serious blow to the rest of us todayt.
Understanding is a three edged sword. - Ambassador Kosh Naranek, Babylon 5
I strongly believe this is an unacceptable settlement. An acceptable settlement is one where a business arrangement is reached whereby both parties benefit from the agreement. For example, a deal whereby some small fee is paid to the RIAA for each copy of a song downloaded or sold, in exchange for RIAA marketing muscle supporting the scheme. This would most likely bring more benefits to both parties than the current scheme, which will screw over AudioGalaxy and give no extra profit to the RIAA.
Conclusion? The boring, gray-haired old men in charge of the RIAA have absolutely no imagination whatsoever. Only a lot of greed. And greed is their downfall. Case in point: If music (and indeed, other "content" such as movies) was sold for much cheaper, I believe the RIAA would increase volumes tremendously and make more profit than under the current scheme, where laws are passed left and right to protect the alleged right of the RIAA to eternal profit. Suppose an album you wanted cost $8.00 to $10.00 (USD), rather than the outrageous $18.00 that many albums cost nowadays. I believe that most people would find it so much more convenient to buy an album than to download 300 copies of a song in search of a good quality rip. Further, I think that music should be sold online, for extremely low prices. An album that sells for $8.00 in the store might go for $2.00 if downloaded, as the buyer doesn't get a nice shiny CD, case, booklet, and all kinds of other stuff. The copy available at the store would include all sorts of cool stuff (including coupons to direct customers to other music they might like), giving people a good reason to actually buy the music.
Finally, I think everyone should fight for their fair use rights. If you buy a CD, you should be allowed to make as many copies as you want for your own use. For example, I never take my original CDs into my car, as they could get jacked or lost or melted in the heat or something. It would be even more convenient if my stereo played MP3 CDs, so I could put all my albums on a few discs and not have to endanger myself and others while driving to change CDs around.
But like I said, those idiot gray-haired old geezers in control of the RIAA have no style or imagination. They're a bunch of boring old men with no goal in life other than to make themselves appear elevated by crushing others.
Call me what you will (a troll, probably), but am I the only one here noticing how people are equating the legitimacy of AudioGalaxy with the end of its usefulness?
I'm not saying that getting pushed around by the xxAA's is a good thing, and sure, AG will now probably go the way of Napster. But really, folks, if the OSS community is going to gain standing (and a measure of its own legetimacy, I suppose) in the public eye, it really should stop blindly backing causes rooted primarily in software and music piracy, and start working on projects that are legally bullet-proof. That way, we can have software that is both useful And legal!
If you consider these terms to be mutually exclusive, your efforts will be an exercise in futility.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
One wonders if that might be one of the hidden motivations of RIAA other than simple pirating.
If an artist can easily get worlwide distrubution and play without them. What happens to RIAA. Granted it would take many years. I could see a world where bands are all distrubuted on the net and the only thing we pay for is a live preformance.
Of course this has been discussed to death in the past.
"Don't mess with him, he taunts the happy fun ball."
The RIAA is making matters worse. If they truely think that the internet is responsible for them losing money, the worst thing they did was sue companies involved out of business.
If the RIAA had figured out a way of turning Napster/Audio Galaxy into a business, then the majority of music downloaders would be there using the service legitimately.
What has happened instead, is they shut down the popular way of getting music. The result is that the people hooked on this service are going to go underground and acquire music through alternative means. If they can't get music from Kazaa, then they'll head to IRC or other de-centralized sources.
They basically blew up the central location for music swapping, forcing everybody into smaller cells. Now, if the RIAA does ever provide a service, few people will head towards it.
Oops. Songs will still get traded, but now the RIAA has little to no hope of ever getting money for it. I'd feel sorry for them if they didn't call me a thief because I own a CDR-drive.
"Derp de derp."
Just curious, has anyone heard of any attempts by services such as these to buy copyrights from artists and challenge the RIAA as a legitimate (competing, rather than RIAA-owned) distributor on legally even ground?
It's a nice idea, but it doesn't work like that. I'm sure that artists may be amenable to the idea, but major artists simply aren't going to be able to do that. For albums released by major labels (smaller labels as well, IIRC), the artist/songwriter owns the song, but NOT the actual recording of it that appeared on the album. So all those tracks that came off an album are owned by the publisher, not the artist - and there's a snowball's chance in Hell that you'll get them to sell that (or license it, either - they can't even agree on fairly doing that between themselves for their lame online music services, let alone fairly licensing it to some young startup whippersnappers).
"Okay," you say, "so the artists don't own the actual recordings (that particular performance that's on the album) ... so why don't they re-record it (since they own the song itself) and sell or license that to someone else?" Unfortunately, most major artists are under contract to large record labels - so if they record a new version, their label gets first dibs. That also includes "official" live recordings, too. BTW, live bootlegs, even if the band turns a blind eye to their existence, are theoretically just as illegal as pirated album tracks, since the label the band is under contract to should get a chance to make money off the band is going to release it (and the band to get some royalties from it).
Lastly, don't blame the bands for making these "deals with the devil" - yes, it handcuffs them to have the rights to their next X albums' worth of songs locked into a big nasty music label - but when you're struggling to make it, the offer of financing to make albums, distribution networks to get you on the radio and in Tower Records is nothing to sneeze at. They're just trying to make it when they sign these deals - nobody else right now can offer them the same things that the major labels can.
Maybe the real hope lies in bands that use the big labels to get popular, then after their contracts expire use the 'net intelligently to reach their fans. But unless rock stars start reading Slashdot daily (or someone can convince them that there's a really solid plan for not losing their fiscal shorts in the effort), we may be waiting a while.
"95% of all Slashdot
Maybe people who want to download put mainstream, copyrighted material online, but those of us who would like to share usually share music we're excited about to get people interested in them. The leeches who just want to download the lastest Tool or Britney Spears or what have you are already well served by Usenet and IRC and have little to fear. But the group of people left out of the equation are the sharers - they are the ones who brought a dynamism to music listening and P2P, and they are the ones that the music industry is really frightened of - not (only) because of possible threats to their revenue model, but because it's a way of creating channels of listenership that threaten the top-forty-money-machine that they know and manipulate.
frankly i think the RIAA is a price fixing monopoly gouging the customers and the artists left and right. when you pay $18 for a new CD (and $18 CDs won't just be for Sam Goody any more - look out) your favorite band gets about 50 cents. Most of which goes off to pay their debt to their record company, which owns the copyrights to their songs for like 40 years. Download the music, see them play live, and buy a T-Shirt, you get more, the band gets more, nobody loses but the criminals.
The RIAA only has the power it does because they have used their massive weight to insure that you can *only* gain popularity through them. The large CD distributors and retailers have exclusive deals with the big record Co.s MTV will never play a minor label artist, and neither will Clearchannel (who owns over half of all radio stations in America)
to think that popular music was once a medium of freedom and rebellion, or at least made a passable effort of pretending to be. these days it's just another hollywood, only far far worse.
hey kids, want to be rad, want to be a star? forget the damn guitar, start writing novels, or maybe learn to paint, it's more respectable, and your ass won't be so sore after dealing with the suits.
In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
yeah then this company called Clearchannel bought all of my local radio stations, and I only hear the 10 songs that are also on MTV (which I hear in the distant past played music as well)
I'm leaving this fucking country.
In Capitalist America, bank robs you!