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.
"If you are planning on offering the RIAA's music, what do you really have to do to play their music legally?"
Give them lots of money.
Granted, that's not the way it should be, but as it currently stands, that is how it is. They're just acting like greedy, bratty kids with too much money, and parents who are (largely) content to just slap them on the wrist.
Treat them as such.
Karma: \Kar"ma\, n. [Skr.] (Buddhism) One's acts considered as fixing one's lot in the future existence.
The RIAA isn't interested in resolving this issue. Their only interest in copyright is as a legal tool to retain effective ownership of product. They don't want to see innovative distribution schemes. Proposals that would enable distribution of copywritten product within their stated parameters don't interest them. From their point of view, it's all unwanted competition.
Also, the notion of a database to track copyright is interesting, but, at least in the U.S., isn't copyright vested in the author, automatically, at the moment of authorship? Tracking who actually owns copyright at a given time would be more useful.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
For the guy asking about an RIAA listing of songs, etc.
Back right before Napster's death, they had a list to abide by. IIRC - The judge required the RIAA (more accurately, the labels) to provide those lists. So a list has once been made, and probably still lying around somewhere, albeit somewhat outdated. Very interesting they aren't interested in providing such a list any longer.
The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
If this is actually how it works, then could a large group of people ruin the RIAA's grand plan by sending them a *huge* number of checks for the very small amounts owed for duplication, semi-public (semi-private?) performance or whatever of their copyrighted music?
Hmmmm.
I don't know the numbers that are actually being thrown around, but apparently, the position at the RIAA is that by downloading a song from the Internet instead of buying a CD, I am costing them some amount of money.
Fair enough. Figure a high-dollar CD, so we'll use a figure of $18.00 as the amount I didn't spend. Now, I don't work for free, so if I'm going to pay them for their music, I want compensation for my materials, effort, etc. So let's knock off the cost of *my* CD, the wear and tear on my burner, the use of my connectivity (all marked up, of course) and let's not forget my *time* (including the time spent doing accounting on their behalf to calculate and arrange payment).
Since I don't do this a lot, there are no economies of scale, and everything costs more when I'm doing it than in their huge and more efficient operation. I figure I end up owing them a balance of $0.02. I write a check for that amount and mail it in (have to find out just where to send it).
It has *got* to cost them way more than $0.02 just to open the envelope and process the check. I figure the odds are good that I'll either get it back with a form letter or it'll never be cashed.
If either of those happens, have they refused to accept payment for the use of their copyrighted music? Does this undermine their position?
Any attorneys out there who can comment on this?
TyZone
Soon we'll be releasing some licenses to the public which will enable artists to do exactly what you need - mark their content according to how they want it to be distributed. We don't believe in only having the black and white options of just copyright or public domain. While those are good, we're going to create some more differences, such as "non-commercially redistributable", "derivatives allowed", "no derivatives allowed", etc.
It doesn't solve your problem *today*, but it will start to help soon. You can subscribe to our mailing list to stay informed.
I found your post on Slashdot really interesting, especially with
respect to the attitude of those organizations towards small-scale
enterprises. One idea that occurred to me was that you could create a
web interface for MPAA and RIAA to input their exclusion list. You could
also give them a special e-mail address that gets processed by a perl
script. Give them each an account, and keep a record of your offer to
exclude copyrighted material. If you've done all that, you've already
done more than ICQ, TiVo and Samsung. I think, also, that you would come
under the DMCA safe harbour. Of course, I can't give you legal advice,
just some ideas that occurred to me.
Good luck!
Regarding trying to play by the rules, a friend of mine tried that and found out it really bothers them.
We've done a few kayak videos (aka "kayak porn"- all action, no plot), so it's fast music and a bunch of people dropping big waterfalls. Once we tried to be totally compliant, and contacted some studio for a band that we used a lot of music for. The lady my buddy talked to seemed rather annoyed that she had to do some paperwork for the 50$ check we were going to pay (something like a nickel for each video we estimated we'd make/sell). So we went ahead and payed them anyway.
And the next time she said don't bother, it's not worth it to them.
So, for the small timers, they just don't want you to bug them. And now adays we don't. We try to use local music and get permission, and the small bands with great music totally dig having there stuff used at no charge.
Jason
It's okay to copy music onto an analog cassette, but not for commercial purposes.
It's also okay to copy music onto special Audio CD-R's, mini-discs, and digital tapes (because royalties have been paid on them) - but, again, not for commercial purposes.
Beyond that, there's no legal "right" to copy the copyrighted music on a CD onto a CD-R. However, burning a copy of CD onto a CD-R, or transferring a copy onto your computer hard drive or your portable music player, won't usually raise concerns so long as:
The copy is made from an authorized original CD that you legitimately own
The copy is just for your personal use. It's not a personal use - in fact, it's illegal - to give away the copy or lend it to others for copying.
The owners of copyrighted music have the right to use protection technology to allow or prevent copying.
Remember, it's never okay to sell or make commercial use of a copy that you make.
No metion of "Fair Use" in there. Note how they don't say it's *legal* to make a copy for yourself? ...won't usually raise concerns ...
Hey Sniper - Try the RIAA. Leave the regular joes alone.
Just a strange idea I had while reading another comment on another /. RIAA story: if the RIAA is succeeding in controling the distribution and sales for vast majority of the music we listen to, what would happen if we formed a "consumer's union" of sorts?
It would be more organized and longer-term than a boycott; think of it as more like a labor union or trade union, but representing consumers instead of manufacturers or distributors.
If the RIAA and other entertainment (and software) interests start using DRM to strictly control how we can use our purchased music then we may benefit from a large union or lobby that has enough support to hurt the RIAA (or whoever) financially with a boycott or even organizing other forms of entertainment to displace what the RIAA is offering.
The union could publish a Consumer Reports style magazine and/or web site with reviews on consumer entertainment hardware and cost versus restrictions and how that compares to what we're used to: tapes and CDs.
In short, if the IP companies are teaming up through producers and distributors, why can't we team up as consumers and tell THEM how we're going to buy music?
Heck, I used the word "lobby" above and just now realized that such a union could lobby against anti-consumer legislation and back up any threats with member voters. Individuals writing in to their legislators saying they'll vote for someone else may catch a lawmaker's notice, but a block of voters belonging to one group saying the same thing in unison really gets their attention.
I haven't really thought this idea through and I'm not a leader, and this will probably sort itself out through market dynamics sooner or later regardless of the law. But there you are. Discuss.
- Promote the enjoyment of Free entertainment to people who might not otherwise pay attention to something that lacks the "corporate seal of approval."
- Produce every type of Free entertainment your talents allow, and make it very clear that it is Free.
- Lead by example: Stop -- completely stop -- paying third parties for entertainment, and encourage others to do the same. (I have no disagreement with paying artists directly.)
Are any of those easy? No. Are all of them critical to making any inroads against corporate entertainment, and the attacks on our rights? Yes, I believe so.My new mantra is "Enjoy some Free entertainment, and keep your money in your pocket." Feel free to borrow that whenever and wherever appropriate! :-)
No Laughing Allowed!
They are owned by AOL TimeWarner.
The RIAA may not dictate terms of performance, but a subsidiary of the RIAA, called SoundExchange, *does* dictate payment for copyright fees. It doesn't matter whether or not the artist is indie/underground/whatever. The purpose of SoundExchange is to collect fees on *all* copyright holders, whether they're affiliated with the RIAA or not. Somehow, they're actually able to get away with this.
l
To avoid the aforementioned fees in a legal manner, you would need to get a waiver from each individual artist/label. Though SoundExchange collects these fees, the people who create that music don't see a dime of the fee you're paying. Cute, isn't it? To contact and gain permission from all those bands/labels is next to impossible, which turns all of this into a pretty sweet deal for the RIAA, and a very sour situation for webcasters who want to go the full legal route.
Jamie Zawinski, likely well-known here for his contributions to Mozilla, XScreensaver, and Lucid Emacs, current runs a nightclub in San Francisco, called the DNA Lounge. Every single performance/dj set is webcast from the club.. so he's been kind enough to do a full write-up of the necessary fees, legalese, etc for potential webcasters, club owners, and the like. Even if you're not interested doing it, it's a good overview of the crap that the RIAA and their ilk put people through. His write-up covers a pretty broad territory, including SoundExchange, associations that you have to pay fees to, and quite a bit more.
you can find his write-up here:
http://www.dnalounge.com/backstage/webcasting.htm
What we need is something similar to the "truth.com" capaign to tell the truth about the RIAA and such. Imagine the effect :)
I am Lord Snowbeam. Heed my call!
Reverse the concept. forget the RIAA creating a list. How about creating a database of ARTIST controlled music that is copyleft with a GPL(?) style use license. That is, music created by the artist that is free without warranty, or obligation etc etc. Perhaps something similar to what MP3.com uses. The limit would be if you want to use it in a compilation or other commercial work, then all rights are to the artist.
Find some DB/web interface gurus, (sourceforge project?), to create a portal site in some ways similar to a cross between MP3.com and a freedb.org. Artist could upload free-use/copyleft songs to the site, post some notes on the song, their upcoming gigs, locations, who their working with, etc etc. Communication could be two way between the artist and webcasters via forums and automated email? basically a blog and community site for the copyleft artist and webcasters some of whom will certainly be both artist and broadcaster. Just an outline here folks...
What's in it for the artist?
Exposure for new unsigned artist. Developed artist could use pseudonyms to try out new genres and test diverse styles. Direct feedback from listeners. No studio controlling what they release.
What's in it for webcasters?
NO RIAA. various appealing ideas. mainly escaping Orwellion copyright controls.
Has anyone already tried this? It appears there is a need.
mp3.com's licensing deals for artists have sucked for some time now (since the takeover) - the rats left the sinking ship when the artists started to have to pay them to be able to get any download royalties back - fuck that, might as well distribute via p2p for free, and sell _real_ audio CDs, not their DAM CDs which contain simply decoded 128kbps mp3s which sound like garbage (well, more garbage than the original).
- An annoyed ex mp3.com artist
...to form our own music label?
Wild idea: what would happen if the FSF formed a not-for-profit music label? One that passed on as much profit as possible to the artists?
The RIAA is the greatest threat to free software today, without question. Microsoft has certainly not resorted to the legal system to destroy the movement; the RIAA has and is.
It's time that we took the threat for its real value and struck back, hard.
If you want to use the majority of the music published through traditional channels... you need to talk to ASCAP and/or BMI. AFAIK, talking to them does not help secure rights to use a song in something like a movie, but for most part, you're on the right track if you talk to these guys.
Radio stations pay ASCAP/BMI fees in order to play music on their radio stations. They're responsible for dividing up money to member artists.
The funny thing is that I've *never* seen or read an article where either organization has taken a stand for or against DRM... it's always the RIAA.