Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Says Webcasting Royalties Are Too Low
Karl writes "The RIAA announced today their intention to appeal the royalty rates for internet radio decided on by the Librarian of Congress. Today was the very last day to file for an appeal." The webcasters put out of business by the royalties include SomaFM, Monkeyradio, KPIG, and many others. At least a few Congressional representatives support revising CARP to give small webcasters a chance to survive.
Jesus, I just said it RULED, and I'm not even American. Indeed it RULED.
I dont quite understand the reason tho. They've killed just about every decent net radio station out there - are they just making sure there's none left so they dont receive any royalties at all?
Invoicing, Time Tracking, Reporting
The RIAA are quickly making their way to the top of the hate list for any free thinking individual. Does anyone know whether their appeal opens up the possibility for other groups to argue that the rates are too high??
I have such difficulty imagining what the high-ups at RIAA are thinking. Crushing diversity and turning broadcasters against them isn't going to help even them one single bit.
The only option right now is for brave broadcasters to practise civil disobedience and find ways to continue broadcasting. Support your favourite internet radio station!
A little planning goes a long way...
Unless... there really is a world outside the USA...
Why can't these stations stream off an offshore host. To me that appears to be an easy solution to give an FU to the RIAA. I'm not saying that they still couldn't shut people down, but it might be much harder.
Or maybe Peercast will save the day.
The obvious solution, IMHO, is that there should be fees... that are based on percent profit. Why should the RIAA profit from someone who isn't profitting in the first place? This would essentially be free advertising, that the RIAA would not have to pay for.
Besides, who pays for radio anyway? So unless someone actually does pay, and the internet radio guys have ads... they get zero profit, and so the RIAA gets zero profit.
But still gets free advertising for whatever is being played. So what exactly was the problem?
And if they think that people will record songs from them and what not... well, its more difficult than it sounds. Recording a live stream is very annoying... similar to recording a radio stream. First, you have no idea when a specific song will play. And even if you continually recorded the stream to get to the song... or for more than once song, you still gotta edit it down to the individual songs. This is more trouble than its worth, when Kazaa or the like would do just fine.
So the RIAA has the jaw-dropping temerity to accuse Yahoo! of "self-serving interest" (isn't that what business is all about anyway?). This is from the same organisation whose press-releases appear to suggest that CDs didn't appear until the 1990s, who even suggest that "turning music into a file is great" whilst trying to stamp out the ability of the rest of us to do so, and who wrote the book on "self-serving interest". Just what version of reality are these people partaking in? It's obviously not the same as the rest of us.
It's too late for me to die young
It has nothing to do with royalties. Copyright and Patents are designed for one thing:
1) To enforce existing market monopolies for those companies that have the legal cash stockpiles to do so.
2) Making sure the consumer never has a choice of any other medium or format that isn't controlled by the attorneys/board of directors of said company that currently has a market monopoly.
3) Using the power and cash that comes from that power, of such a market monopoly, companies and board of directories buy our lawmakers, and insure that laws are made to enforce any market monopoly in place. All perfectly legal I am afraid.
Finally this is not a question of royalties. Companies/organizations that control whole markets are not interested in third parties tiny little royalty payments. They want to own the ENTIRE market. That is the only way to stay in power.
Secondly, market volatility is prevented because you can squash any competitor to your organization that comes along that may destabilize the "status quo".
Entire markets online have closed for competitors to what the RIAA is and represents because they have enourmous cash stockpiles to grease the collusion of government lawmakers and therefore the legal system.
The AntiTrust system in this country is a joke, quite frankly. I don't even know why it is on the books. I think it is a TAX law. (i.e. If a company "all of a sudden" falls under the anti trust act they must not be paying someone in Washington enough money. As we have seen with Microsoft, you hand over enough money lawmakers go away, and you retain your market monopoly.)
Hack
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
If you had a job that you loved to death, but it meant that there was only one boss in the world that would hire you, would you stand up to him?
Would you speak out against him in public? Very likely you would not. Because this boss can get you shut out of your job for good. Sure you can go on doing what you love, but you won't reach nearly as many listeners. Add to that the fact that your boss is now actively pursuing shutting down every distribution method that you would use to do your job without him.
This is why very few artists have spoken out against the RIAA. "Want to continue recording music for the public? Shut the hell up and live with us, because congress sure won't stick up for you." is what the RIAA is basically saying to every artist out there. Except that they don't need to say it, it is in every artist's mind already.
I dunno where slashdotters get ideas like this.
The law is not code to find bugs in. The law is not stupid. The law has judges that are (mostly) hired and trained to use their judgement to stop stupid things like this. Your idea demonstrates such an unfathomable naivety about the way Western law works that I think you just might be a troll.
Most of the time when you see people skirting the law, they're using explicitely defined loopholes and tugging them bigger. Sometimes even those people get slammed by judges for pushing things too far. That's the whole point of having judges, is because we aren't good enough to write law (code) that thinks of every case.
Sheesh.
-Rob
-Rob Ewaschuk
I'll preface this biased statement by saying that I own a record store :o)
Economics 101 of the record store music biz:
1. There are new 'developing artist' price points. A lot of pretty big name artists first came out at this pricepoint (Limp Bizkit's first album did, Godsmack's first, Avril Lavigne)... We (record stores) end up selling them for about 5.99 - 6.99 and they cost us about 5.75 to 6.50.
2. The superstar pricepoints cost us big bucks. The new springsteen album, for instance, costs just a tiny bit shy of 12 bucks. So we all sold it for 9.99 on the first day and, I'm not kidding, we lost about 2 bucks per CD sold.
3. Every store pays about the same for CDs from the manufacturers.
4. Stores make more of the their money now off of cooperative advertising. The cheesy mall stores that you see charge the record companies big bucks to have their posters up or their albums on sale.
5. Record stores have been fighting the labels for lower prices for years. However with the consolidations in the music biz, the labels have their bosses (i.e. the shareholders) pushing for higher and higher returns, so the labels can't afford to reduce the price of albums lest they be sacked.
6. Catalog sales of music are up a little or at least steady. However hit sales are way, way down. The industry believes it to be because of burning.
7. The industry loses tons of money on most artists, but makes it up and then some on the big artists. However since the sales of big artists have been down, the economic detriment to the labels is obvious.
8. Almost all record stores would not make a profit without lifestyle merchandise (i.e. piercings, belts, lava lamps, etc.) and used CDs.
9. A typical record stores' profit margin on new CDs is LESS THAN 15%. No, I'm not kidding. And yes, I very much know what I'm talking about. That's less margin than gas stations and grocery stores.
10. The typical profit margin on used CDs and lifestyle merchandise is over 50%. You can see why we move to selling more and more of that stuff.
11. Consumer attitude towards pricing is that CDs are way, way to pricey and that record stores/labels could afford to sell them way cheaper. Obviously our industry has totally failed here to create value for our customers. You hear nowhere near the bellyaching about software where you buy a Microsoft Office CD that costs them 82 cents to make and they sell for $300! Or about videogames that sell for fifty bucks. It's because consumers feel they've been getting additional value from software and games, but not from music. Is the pop star of today really any better than the pop star of years gone by? Albums now are longer and better produced, but is the music really any better? A lot of our customers don't feel so, so the price of CDs to them still seems to be too high.
What would I do as a reasonable music consumer (as opposed to someone who just thinks music should be free and artists will still record if we steal their works)?
For new CDs, I'd buy those developing artist CDs and only those. That way the record companies will learn that if you charge 6 bucks for something tons of people will buy, but if you charge 15 bucks, very few will buy. If I wanted a big artist that is expensive, I'd wait for it used - The great thing about capitalism is that the almighty consumer will have his/her say and that if you show your elasticity of demand (i.e. you will pay one lower price but not a higher) pricing will change.
There's not much point in paying to setup an internet radio station which broadcasts exactly the same as the broadcast stations: there's a lot of work involved (and I think a lot of people listening to mass-market media aren't really inclined to do that kind of thing).
So you tend to find a much wider variety of music on 'net radio, which gives people choice of music from different countries, and genres not traditionally represented by RIAA members. Not really conducive to having member's music heard all the time.
I think another part of it is that it's quite a bit harder to push music to a large number of online stations, all run by different people, than it is to promote to the normal broadcast stations, which are often represented by a few parent companies, and I'd guess probably common playlists.
Compare with some of the reasons people came up with as to why they thought the RIAA went so hard after AudioGalaxy. (AG really went out of their way to filter mp3s of artists who didn't want their wusic shared, not just RIAA members but everyone, so I don't think the copyright-violation claims by the RIAA entirely ring true there).
This is all about control. The record companies want internet radio to pay royalties, so the stations will have no choice but to accept payola from the record companies. The fact that internet radio stations tend to play independent music further threatens the RIAA.
I will say it again. This issue is not about royalties. It is about controlling the market and silencing the competition.
If that's true it's insane but I'm having a real hard time believing it's true. Yer gonna have to prove it to me. Link?
It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries
I wonder why he did not mention the cost of stamping a cd is less that .50 per cd. Which gives them plenty of profit especiallyof a multi platnium album. We see the kind of deciet in corporate america, why should the record industry be any different they are hiding thier real costs and expenses as well. People of the world we are getting shafted, they will not stop until we are bleeding money out of every orafice.
Che
-For it is the very essence of imperialism to turn information systems into wild, bloodthirsty animals-
My message to the RIAA... with rambling included...
Just wanted to mention that I support the IFRA. I would say almost all of the CDs I have bought over the last two years have been because of Independent Web Radio stations. The reason is because I don't listen to Pop radio much. I'm more of a heavy metal and techno guy. I would say that Internet radio has been directly responsible for my purchase of at least 20 metal CDs over the two years, and has been responsible for me attending at least three concerts. So just think... if you kill Internet radio there are lots of us non-pop listeners that just might sit back and not purchase any new CDs because we haven't heard anything new to buy... I have over 200 CDs that I like and still listen too... I can probably just sit back and listen to just those for the next five years or so without purchasing anything new. Please stop trying to kill Internet radio with CARP. Your non-pop music fans depend on it for new music. There is more to music than MTV and the Clear Channel Radio network. Internet radio helps you guys by making pure fan based radio stations that will help make your affiliates better margins on non-pop bands. Don't fear what you don't understand. Embrace the future and capitalize on change.
JOhn
Campaign for Liberty
"A witty quote proves nothing."
--Voltaire
11. Consumer attitude towards pricing is that CDs are way, way to pricey and that record stores/labels could afford to sell them way cheaper. Obviously our industry has totally failed here to create value for our customers. You hear nowhere near the bellyaching about software where you buy a Microsoft Office CD that costs them 82 cents to make and they sell for $300! Or about videogames that sell for fifty bucks.
I'd have to say that last part is not quite true. Office and Windows are probably among the most highly pirated pieces of software in the industry, and price point has a lot to do with that. A great deal of the popularity of the open source movement in business has more to do with cost than with the availability of the source code. Similarly, most gamers feel that the prices of PC games are too high (this may or may not be true of console games as well, I find that many gamers feel that console games are a better value in some cases because bugs are less prevalent with the limited platform than with PC games). The PC games industry has an added problem in that the early adopters (who pay the most for those games) also are the most likely to suffer from the bugs in that game and have to spend the most time working through those bugs. Software like Office, on the other hand, is something few people buy more than once every few years (Office 97 is still the most common version, though Office 2000 is growing), and usually purchase with a computer (at a lower price point, when they're already spending quite a bit of money).
As an additional point, the consumers of music CDs tend to represent a much broader range of incomes, whereas the majority of Office licenses go to corporations, and the gamers that buy the most PC games are the same people that are spending $400 on a video card that will be replaced in the product line in 6 months (meaning that they'll buy another video card in 6-12 months at nearly the same price point).
What my personal exposure to the PC gamers has shown (through doing tech support and running an online gaming league) is that gamers are starting to pay more attention to the price/performance ratio of their hardware, and are more willing to spend the $50+ for a new game from a reliable developer that has a good history (or perceived good history) of releasing games that are fairly well finished and will provide a great deal of entertainment for their money (ie replay value, online experience, and the depth of the single play-through). Gamers are streaming towards AMD CPUs for their price/performance, and nVidia's GeForce MX line, even though they know they can get something better if they pay more money, they get the best value, knowing fully well that the system requirements of games are well below what they're buying anyway.
It's because consumers feel they've been getting additional value from software and games, but not from music. Is the pop star of today really any better than the pop star of years gone by? Albums now are longer and better produced, but is the music really any better? A lot of our customers don't feel so, so the price of CDs to them still seems to be too high.
Actually, although many people do feel that the value of newer albums isn't as much as older albums were previously, I think the biggest factor is that the music industry said that CD prices would drop, and they have instead risen. When I first started buying CDs they were about $5 more than the cassettes I was buying before that, even though they were already cheaper to produce than cassettes. Since my budget for music didn't grow, I was buying about 2/3rds as much music as I had been buying before, simply because I was spending $15 per CD rather than $10 per cassette. Now that my budget for that has grown, the CD prices have risen as well, and a new CD can run anywhere from $17 to $20 for even non-top-40 bands, unless I take the time to go looking for them at smaller stores with smaller selections to get them for the $14 or $15 I was paying 10 years ago. So, the record industry raised prices, lowered manufacturing costs (CDs cost about 1/2-1/3 the cost of a cassette to produce), lowered the royalties for many of their artists for CDs (experimental format charge), and lied to the consumers, saying the prices would drop when the CD became the prevalent format, and then never dropping the prices. Records cost more today, too, but that's understandable because of a much more limited supply and demand, so they're produced in much smaller numbers (a new record tends to run about $20-30, depending on the length of the album (how many records it takes up), the number pressed, and anything else unusual about it, such as unusual colours for the records themselves).
It's certainly not unusual for me to drop $100-200 every time I walk into a record store, but when I'm walking away with fewer albums each time, or have to spend more time in the store looking for something to spend that money on, I'm less likely to do it as often. I've also spent a great deal more money buying music online in the last 4 years than buying it in stores, because stores simply can't afford to stock a lot of the stuff I like to listen to (or, if it's Wal-Mart, Sam Goody, and the like, they will refuse to stock or sell many of the albums I buy, or only sell censored versions of those albums). After all, how many record stores want to stock a CD that they might only sell 1 copy of each year it's on their shelves? It's especially helpful that many of the record labels (or sub-labels in some cases) that carry a few of the bands I listen to sell direct from their website at prices that are near or lower than what you've quoted the major labels are selling albums to record stores for, and are very up-front about whether or not the version you're buying is censored (something that's sometimes not as obvious in a store).
-PainKilleR-[CE]
Hilary Rosen [SMTP:hrosen@riaa.com] Does this help at all? *evil grin*
"Someone needs to hit the people in charge of the RIAA with a clue-bat several times..." Which makes me wonder, "Where have all the good assasins gone?"
The advertising industry used to talk about 'The Great Unwashed' and talk about 'getting on all fours to look at the problem from the customer's point of view'. They were just as wrong as you are, and smarter agencies came along and ate their lunch.
The population contains idiots. That doesn't mean all of the population can't think, nor does it mean that all of the population that can, won't. The real question to ask yourself is- if the population did think, how, exactly, would you know? Quick, name 20 non-RIAA music labels. Name ten places to go and buy music without going through RIAA-controlled channels... even if the population does think, how are they going to know where to go if the information is kept from them?
6. Catalog sales of music are up a little or at least steady. However hit sales are way, way down. The industry believes it to be because of burning.
I was gonna say something similar...
oh, you forgot the preceeding 's' on 'hit'
the reason 'hit' sales are down is the same reason there was the great disco burn of 1979...
"...the Chicago White Sox's notorious Disco Demolition Night in 1979. Fans were invited to burn disco records in the outfield of Comiskey Park and a riot nearly ensured. The White Sox forfeited the second game of the doubleheader."
um, people just don't like the music.
Looking for Book Reviews? Check out Literary Escapism.