Slashdot Mirror
Dealing with the RIAA?
I've Read the Frelling Manual, and I still have Questions!
J.Charles asks: "Always looking for new ways to help out the independent music scene in my region, I recently started thinking about putting together a streaming radio station. Mind you, this is to be non-profit, with the sole purpose to help out independent artists. I had made a small stream years ago using Shoutcast, but this was before all of the RIAA stipulations were being crammed down everyones throats, and I really paid no mind to copyright law.
If I am to do this, I would like to keep it fully legit in the eyes of the RIAA, because we've already seen the MPAA come after file sharers, citing gigantic fines, at the university I work for, and I really don't have the money for legal counsel.
So I've found adequate hosting, and read up on the stipulations published on the RIAA website, but most of it is quite murky, and skims over the 'how-to' of things.
For example, do I really have to pay royalties for each stream running? If so, how do I keep track of that, or do I just have to pay the royalty times the number of my maximum consecutive streams available? Is there Shoutcast plugin software for generating the play list information that must be sent to Soundexchange? Are there any grants available to help offset the cost of paying royalties and license application fees ($500 a year!)?
Basically, I can't find any streams that appear to be running 'legit', so I have no one to answer all my questions. I've even thought about contacting the RIAA to see if someone there would assist me, and perhaps help fund this project, since it would make a good example of a legit site, and afterwards I could serve as educated help for other people in my situation. I mean, the RIAA recognizes streaming as an important business, you would think their interests would lie in helping educate people to use it the way they would like.
Is anyone out there running a legit stream, or know someone who does? better yet, has anyone seen a guide for people in my shoes?"
I'm, Trying to Play Nice, But They Won't Return My Calls!
Jarrett Wold asks: "I was working on a chat client earlier this year, and I wanted file sharing capabilities (a la Napster). However I did not want any of the legal liability so unlike Napster, I actually contacted RIAA and the MPAA before I started any development.
Considering RIAA and MPAA's itchy trigger finger regarding copyright issues I figured I would pitch a solution to them. It was simple, since they represent a large number of copyright holders, they should create a database listing all of those copyright holders. It's easy enough to determine that Metallica has copyrighted material, what happens with that unknown band that you're not sure about? At least this way we would have a definitive list for all the people represented by RIAA and MPAA. Who also bring the largest number of lawsuits against file sharing applications.
Now I'm not rich, I don't have a lawyer and considering I live in North Dakota, I make on average $8.25/HR for data driven web development. If you work at Burger King in another state, you make more than I do flipping burgers. I started a month long stretch of making phone calls and sending emails. I called RIAA around 15 times proposing that they construct a database of copyright holders so I could be compliant with copyright law. I even suggested that if they charged a penny per user they could pull in 250K a month for use of their database. It would also force file sharing apps to have a business model. I'm all for avoiding '.COM The Bubble, Part 2'.
The RIAA was flat-out uninterested. They would listen politely, and take down my number or refer me to a voicemail of either a legal person (who never returned phone calls) or some person in management who simply stated it wasn't their responsibility to compile such a database. So, after fifteen or so emails, a half dozen long distance phone calls I gave up on RIAA. They obviously want publicity about the injustice of file trading rather than fixing the problem.
I then proceeded to call the MPAA. They were amazingly helpful, everyone that I spoke seemed enthused about doing something along this line. I suppose when you represent studios rather than individual artists the motivation to fix a leaky faucet is top priority. However, after sending a variety of emails and speaking with half a dozen people on the first phone call, I was sent off to someone in their technical department and curtly told that they were working on their own solutions. Do not get me wrong, the MPAA was keenly interested in a fix, but it seems that they too feel that the burden of listing copyright holders is not on them. In fact one executive I spoke with noted that there would be thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of entries, in such a database. I suggested the revenue model again. It was received with interest and shot down in the next moment with the same argument.
So needless to say I gave up. I am now targeting my product specifically for the business market. I have noticed that CD-R manufacturers are not being sued for all the MP3's that are being burnt onto the media they freely distribute. The same goes for Samsung, I have yet to hear of them being sued for making VCR tapes that can record TV shows without commercials (if you're quick about it... ahem TiVo). Nor do I hear of ICQ being sued for it's file transfer abilities that also enable piracy if a user is so inclined.
At what point does the responsibility of the copyright owner come into play? Should it not be the representative groups (RIAA, MPAA) to come up with an 'exclusions list'? In fact technically speaking it's just not possible to determine what's copyrighted without something along those lines.
Who else has gone through this? I figure that the person who pirates is the one responsible, rather than the service itself. File sharing applications have valid purposes. However, if RIAA and the MPAA do not want to make a definitive list of copyrighted material it's nearly impossible to comply to excluding copyrighted material. Saying that file sharing applications facilitate piracy is the same thing as saying search engines facilitate piracy.
Napster had the wrong idea, if they could have worked out something with RIAA regarding this same concept they would be a leviathan. However it makes you wonder if these lawsuits weren't strategic in nature. I believe in the end, history will show that killing Napster was the worst mistake the music industry could have made. They lost control of a contained problem. It wasn't fixed. However when 26 million people scatter to the winds and start their own file sharing networks (Morpheus, Gnutella and many more) the problem is decentralized and unsolvable.
The biggest question of all is to the artist: why aren't you demanding some form of technical action out of the RIAA, instead of lawsuits? Why aren't you asking them to 'Sit down in a room with those file sharing companies and figure out a way to fix this'.
You can't sue them all!
I guess, my North Dakotan notion of business is that if there's a problem fix it before it gets out of hand, however it seems RIAA wants to do the opposite. I guess lawsuits could conceivably be a nice addition to the bottom line and excuse for bad accounting...;)"
And One Last Plea, for Internet Radio...
If you are still interested in saving internet radio, there is one last chance, until the next one arrives next year. There is a bill in play right now that must be passed before October 20th if some of the more popular Internet Radio sites are to return. You can find out more information on this latest push from the Radio and Internet Newsletter and also from Soma FM.
"Always looking for new ways to help out the independent music scene in my region, I recently started thinking about putting together a streaming radio station.
If they are independent then RIAA members have no contract with them, and thus RIAA does not dictate the terms of their performance (either public or recorded)
So again, why do you care about the RIAA? Are you trying to mix in Metallica with your "only helping local indie bands" stream?
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo.
If you plan to stream music solely from independent artists who have no connection with the RIAA, then I suggest you ignore them altogether.
They should not have a say in matters that they had nothing to do with.
Use ISO 8601 dates [YYYY-MM-DD]
If piracy could do damage, it should have killed books, newspapers and magazines years ago because text is the most easily copyable data. Instead, the late 1990s saw the growth of Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and countless newspapers and magazines putting much of their text and images online with no strings attached except for advertizing. They didn't even complain, probably because copying helped them. Also, music is harder to copy than text, and movies are harder still.
So music and movie publishers are inherently safer than text publishers from counterfieting, yet they act more paranoid. Do they think they are entitled to something that text publishers are not? And why do they want protection from copying when copying would help them? Do they LIKE copying? It gets them attention that their music never could!
First Falcon-1 to orbit, then Falcon-9. Then I can die a happy man.
"It has been 4 years since Slashdot posted it's first story containing the phrase "RIAA""
So maybe it's high time to give them (or at least the *AAs in general) their own category?
Good luck getting this crowd to boycott. Every time it's suggested, a hundred people shout about how boycotts never do anything. Apparently, using the Napster-of-the-month and complaining on Slashdot is a much more effective way of getting the record industries' attention.
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
I have absolutely no data to support this, but my guess is that the entire Slashdot readership could stop buying RIAA products today, forever, and hardly register a blip in the media industry's spreadsheets. There just aren't that many of 'em.
At heart, the RIAA represents a distribution oligopoly. It isn't really about music or entertainment -- musicians and artists are simply the source of the RIAA's product. And, it really isn't about copyright or intellectual property -- the RIAA is using copyright and IP legislation to maintain its lock on the distribution channels.
Frankly, any reasonably possible alteration in U.S. copyright law won't break the RIAA's lock. Contrary to the wishes expressed here on occassion, the U.S. is not going to do away with the notions of copyright and intellectual property. The very best we can hope for -- via the Eldred case -- is a reversion to the shorter copyright terms of the 1976 legislation, if the Supreme Court acts against form and declares the Bono Act unconstitutional. Today's music would revert to the public domain when your grandchildren are in college, rather than your great grandchildren.The RIAA's lawyers would still chase you down for copying CD's to the net.
Nor can we expect musicians to willingly stop signing conracts with RIAA companies. Musicians and many other people in the music industry have a vested interest in copyright. (In fact, I've heard them make cogent arguments for perpetual copyright.) Their interest is in being paid. The contractual abuses that some musicians apparently fall prey to are not the issue here. (Musicians deal with that by hiring smarter managers and better lawters.) Musicians like/want/need money just as much as the rest of us. Plus, given a lucky break, they have a very tempting chance at real wealth. I wouldn't count on many musicians lining up to break RIAA's lock. (Yes, a few who are either rich enough or poor enough to afford it will thumb their noses at the RIAA, but not enough.)
I suspect the way to break the RIAA's distribution lock is to leverage technology to create another distribution channel. Napster, Kazaa and the others demonstrate that the technology is there. However, these channels do not offer professional musicians a profitable alternative distribution channel. (It isn't profitable if you don't sell it.)
I'd like to see a few popular and commercial successful recording artists start selling "Internet-only" music directly to customers. In other words, they use the net to sell music that is not available elsewhere. It won't be free, but if people are willing to pay, say, $9.00 instead of $18.00 for a CD's worth of music, maybe the RIAA's lock will start to rust.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Give them lots of money.
No, actually that won't work. You see, the RIAA is not composed of artists who make music. It's composed of companies who distribute music. So when you ask them "What do you really have to do to play their music legally?" all they hear is "Hey, I want to be a music distributor too!". To which they respond "F**k off and die, this is our turf!". Actually, they only take that tactic if you actually distribute music on your own. If you just call them, they apparently just ignore you.
A crude scenario, but that's the gist of it. The RIAA members like the way they have the music distribution business all tied up. Nice and neat. The "Internet" is just going to screw all that up which they hate. They are not going to play nice because it means them giving up control. It'll never happen. They will either succeed in destroying the Internet in the US (and turning America into an intellectual backwater in the process) or die trying.