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.
Link to http://www.riaa.net/ every day from /.
if all they have to do is crab and whine instead of working for a solution, fsck 'em.
I had the idea of striking some CDs of an out of print album for holiday presents, and was able to find all the information to do that several years ago on da ISH... but it looked like $500 each for the eight or so, so the project died.
one thing you CAN do is check out the music licensors, generally ascap and bmi, and follow the link trail. this is for the MUSIC rights only, though, rights to a particular recording (the mechanical rights) should be licenseable from the harry fox agency.
if you are working from a legitimate product, there will be licensing clues for each song in the libretto or on the back of the CD insert, in the form of "COLIC AND DIAPERS", (C) 2001, I. B. Goofy and Snot Bugger, BMI 3:26. to track that down, the agency is BMI, the song title is "COLIC AND DIAPERS", copyright date 2001, and I. B Goofy and Snot Bugger are the artists who will get their nickel per performance.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
Nobody knows..... maybe its security through obscurity? : )
It has been 4 years since Slashdot posted it's first story containing the phrase "RIAA"...
Good thing "RIAA" is over 4 characters or we'd never know when the first story was.
Get ready for a big PR campiagn by the RIAA that is designed to make music traders feel guilty. The cross media campaign was kicked off today with the unveiling of the music united website, radio and TV spots should be out soon featuring several big names such as Madonna and Nelly talking about how poor they have become since the days of Napster, even though music sales went up with napster's popularity.
"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.
How insane is that statement? Is it their music?
"How do I legally use the city's toilet water without breaking the law?"
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"
"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.
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 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.
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.
In my opinion, RIAA is just looking for a scape goat... music sales are falling partly because not many good songs are bring released and partly because of overall economic slowdown,and these guys at RIAA need someway to explain to their shareholders( not RIAA shareholders but shareholders of companiesforming RIAA) that why they are not able to sell more CDs. So they have chosen to blame the online community... I mean how many people in this world have broadband access anyway that they can download music? I still remember that in countries like India,its cheaper to just go and buy the CD than trying to download a song on a dialup. In such places, downloading one or two songs is concievable but mass downloads,now way. Are the record companies implying that the online community is the community which mostly buys their music?? What kind of logic is there in this argument?? And if its actually true, why dont they just release music targeted at the non online communitzy or people who are less likely to download songs?
What's under yellowstone?
If you are planning on offering the RIAA's music, what do you really have to do to play their music legally?
who cares about the riaa's music? ignore that cookie-cutter crap and support your local bands.
Gyrate Dot Org - "Where high-tech meets low-life"
"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?
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!
The RIAA has bet the farm on DRM! It's obvious from the post that they feel they have the solution to their problems. Even worse, they have declared their own customers to be the enemy. So much for all the times I've been told, "The customer is always right."
So, when you call up the RIAA and don't mention that you are contacting them on the behalf of a commercial entity, they assume you are a customer. Would most people give their sworn enemies the time of day if they called? No way.
Based on this attitude, the only choice is to push DRM. Sure they label it Digital Rights Management, but we all know it stands for Digital Restrictions Management. They honestly think that they have the right to police and search their customers private property.
I can't wait until DRM falls flat on it's face. Of course they'll just be blaming their customers for that as well--which is what they've done for a long time.
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
the first thing you have to realize is that it *isn't the RIAA's music.* They are just a trade orginization representing the interests of their members.
*You* are not its customer. Its members are. You absolutely can't understand anything that's going on in this whole issue until you get that absolutely clear in your head.
They are a PR/Legal/Lobbying entity, they don't even do marketing, that is left up to the individual copyright holders and they certainly don't do sales. They represent, ummmmmmm, interests. Of their members. Not you. Their members.
Remember that music is *published,* so look at it this way, if you wanted to publish copies of your favorite bit of abandonware who would you contact? Not a software trade group. You'd contact the publisher. The idea is pretty straightforward. You would have to contact them directly, have their lawyers talk to your lawyers, negotiate terms, draw up a contract, etc..
That's exactly what you have to do with any published work, including music.
With one caveat. Congress recognized that music was somehow different from most copyrighted works and established the idea of a *statutory* license. This license cannot be denied. It's terms are set by the Federal Government, not the copyright holder. These terms include the payment of a *mechanical* royalty.
If your use of a published piece of music meets the terms set forth by the statute for payment of mechanical royalties negotiation of an individual contract is unnecessary. The contract terms are stipulated by law. You must, however, still contract by filling the proper forms with the copyright holder ( *or its representative* ).
Now in some bizarre twist of fate the RIAA has been designated as the admistrator of internet related *mechanical* royalties, and ONLY mechanical royalties, any use that does not meet the statute must still be individually negotiated with the actual copyright holder, which is NOT the RIAA, it is one of its members ( unless the copyright holder is not an RIAA member, then you must still contact and make arangements with the actual copyright holder).
This put the RIAA in an interesting position. They aren't an orinization suited for this purpose. What to do? Start a new orginization of course. THIS is that orginization:
http://www.soundexchange.com/
These are the people you need to contact to arrange the payment of mechanical royalties to those copyright holders who have designated the RIAA as their representative in such matters. Some of them apparently even gone so far as to designate Soundexchange as the representative to negotiate nonmechanical royalties as well, but my guess is that's only the smaller recording companies who do not retain their own lawyers for that purpose.
You'll find the site contains a wealth of information and even copies of the appropriate forms.
The people you talked to at the RIAA should have simply refered you to them, but they're all administrative PR types, i.e., dickheads.
IANAL, but I have been the owner of a small music publishing company, although of the pre-internet variety. With all this RIAA/DMCA crap who knows, I might just get back into the "biz" as a small independant specializing in small artists/labels who also think the RIAA are dickheads.
I doubt it though. The entire industry is too filthy for my tastes these days.
KFG
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.
If you are planning on offering the RIAA's music, what do you really have to do to play their music legally?
Hey kid, how much you got? Really? What a coincidence!
- 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!
not the RIAA or MPAA.
They are Associations of recording companies and motion picture companies. The job of the RIAA and MPAA are to: Provide a united front in litigation, lobbying, and public relations for the companies. If you noticed - there is no uniform RIAA music sharing program, there are a few different ones run by different groups of companies... In other words, even the companies that employ the RIAA can't agree on compensation. If you want to get a master list of music and copyright holders - contact the individual music labels, they better have at least some sort of crude list, and compile the master list yourself.
I wish you luck in your endeavors...
I guess lawsuits could conceivably be a nice addition to the bottom line and excuse for bad accounting...
Perhaps, in an effort to justify the cost of the lawyers, they could somehow come up with this "missing income" they keep ranting about and become the next Enron or WorldCom.
Who's up next for the perp walk?
All I want is a kind word, a warm bed and unlimited power.
We constantly hear of artists getting screwed. Yet artists willfully sign over their rights to the record labels, RIAA, or whoever. (You might take exception to the term "willfully", but I haven't yet heard of anyone having a gun held to their head.)
Way-back-when, volume distribution channels made sense to obtain economies of scale that no one individual could obtain.
Today that economy of scale argument doesn't apply (at least is significantly), which is why mom-and-pop web stores can reach an audience as large as the big guys. At least for Internet-capable consumers, which seems to be the core consumer group of concen.
The technology exists today for artists to form their own version of the RIAA. It wouldn't even require a central organization/site, but could be distributed. (Simple model: songs contain the URL of where to pay.)
The problem isn't technical. It would only take a handful (or 1) of successful artists to bankroll the development (I'm sure there are plenty of open source developers who would jump at the chance).
So why haven't the artists created such an entity?
Obviously this won't do anything for back catalogs. But the problem will remain unless someone takes the first step.
Sadly, the only way the artists are going to get any halfway-reasonable cut of royalties from distribution on the internet is if they strike out on their own (and perhaps form their own recording companies), or if they convince Congress to pass some legislation benefitting them. Otherwise the RIAA and its members will continue to have not the slightest bit of concern for the artists.
They are owned by AOL TimeWarner.
Last year I had an opportunity to speak with one of the licensed services that are available, who was sued by the RIAA, for being too interactive.
Several points were emphasised
1) This is the price take it or leave it. (there is no negotiating the price, it's set.)
2) You have to write snailmail, and be sure to include the business information (I was told unless you have approx $1,000,000 in liquid assets they won't even talk to you or respond.)
3) Everything, the terms, price, these discussions are confidential or you pay an outragous fine.
4) You play what we tell you to play, not what you want.
There is a really good article on
Globe Technology thats starts "The following are 10 rules of e-business failure, a list inspired by the recording industry's imaginative approach:"
He's absolutely right. If your artists are independents and are NOT signed to the RIAA or similar then you don't have to pay a dime to the bastards
That's right. Not a stinking single dime.
However, you're gonna have to keep MAD records to hold up the evidence that none of your music is from RIAA artists.
Find out about my new childrens book: SS Death Camp Criminal Batallion Go To Monte Carlo For The Massacre
I can't reveal who I am, only that I work for RIAA's special projects team.
This team is currently in the final stages of plan Equalize. Equalize has been in the works for over 4 years now, it is funded by the trillions of dollars that are gained from everything ranging from overpriced music to economic damages gained from suing Kid Billy at University of ANystate.
The bottomless warchest which these sources have provided the RIAA, have enabled our team to develop time travel technology. The project's aim is to send a team of assasins back in time to kill chiarglione, fraunhoffer and anyone remotely associated to mp3 encoding/decoding.
I know it is futile to write this, since in a few days no one will know a thing about mp#. I just had to tell the world to lighten my heavy conscience.
If some of you have read this and are wondering how you'll know when the change has taken place-- just keep reading this message over and over again until you have no idea what it's talking about
So I spent 5 minuites of my valueable time reading some of the artists quotes. The one thing that confused me is why all of these artist feel as though their being robbed. Perhaps they should pay more attention to making money in a way that can NEVER be 'stolen' from the. One word:
TOURING
Perhaps Sean Coumbs or Brittny Spears should spend less time sitting around complaining how they'll 'only' make a million on their next album and not two million, and spend more of their time TOURING... if you think about it, it makes sense. I mean, I'd pay 40 bucks to see a band a love, hell I'm going to see the String Cheese Incident in Vancouver on Thursday for 43.50. Now mulitply that by a few hundred thousand people, all over the country, thats a lot of money! Furthermore, concidering that artists make significantly more money on concert tickets than they do on CDs, since the record companies keep most of their CD money.
Touring is a financial model that can (and has made ) millions. Look at the Grateful Dead or Phish. These are bands that made millions of dollars, most of which they made by touring, not by selling CDs. Hell if you look at the record sales for Grateful Dead CDs, they rarely made any money, ususally managing to sell enough to break even.
So my message to the artists quoted on the music united website:
Stop whining and start touring! Realize that the reason people steal 'your' music is because they feel ripped off by you. You want your millions? Go out to the people and perform, most of us will be happy to come see you."
"Entropy is the bad-guy, and he is everywhere"
They don't want to be held to anything now, so as to avoid setting precedent.
If they said today "Okay... want to stream, send a cheque for $x to PO Box y...", they'd have a hard time defending it if they said, later:
"We've decided the appropriate streaming fee is $3x"
"We're losing $2x per unauthorised stream occuring"
or
"They're all pirating b*****s", which is promptly responded to with the display of a cancelled cheque for $x.
It's just like a fascist dictatorship, without the punctual rail service!
... only 100 comments. 95 or so of which have been posted previously on the many other RIAA threads.
I think this striking lack of commentary indicates two possiblities:
1) Rather than posting passionate diatribes on Slashdot, Slashdotters are out in the streets protesting against the RIAA. They're burning CDs on the streets, getting shot at with rubber bullets by the RIAA mafia, and so on.
2) Slashdot readers are bored by hourly updates on the RIAA "standoff," and have decided to put an end to the byte-littering and wasted hours by not posting yet again a message about how much they hate/love the RIAA here.
Cliff forgot to point out that some of those stories, while possibly interesting at one point in Slashdot's history, are now only semi-interesting.
How is targeting P2P networks that are used to extensively trade in copyrighted materials, "declaring war on your own customers"?
And how is asking to be paid for transmission rights in a similar way to how broadcast radio pays for those rights, "Silencing Internet Radio"?
"Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs." P.J. O'Rourke
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"
Imagine if they'd suckered you into a recording contract, instead: they'd skin you for double that without even having to take you to court!
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
Sure you can buy singles. They cost $17.99 and they have 9 "B-side" songs on them.
Actually, sometimes they're all B-sides...
They weren't interested in providing the list before. The judge had to force them to do so, since they took the irrational position that it was Napster's responsibility to figure out whether every file in their service was copyrighted without anything to tell them what files were copyrighted! The RIAA is truly intransigent.
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
Simply move out the United States of America (any one of you or RIAA)
-=-=-=-=
I know life isn't fair, but why can't it ever be un-fair in MY favor!?
Oracle's licensing is by user, transaction, or CPU, depending on the licensee's scenario. It's still expensive, but at least it's up front.
If the RIAA public contacts got friendlier (read that as: hire sales personnel) and publicly disclosed a coherent licensing structure, then they could very well have another profit center. As a company, it's nothing but good business.
It really makes you wonder if the RIAA corporate location has chiba as office plants...
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Why isn't there any competition for the RIAA? This whole topic makes it clear that they aren't looking after the interests of the artists very well, so why does this situation persist? Are all or most of the artists buying into this program? I know there are a few talking sense, but there is a lot of money that is being left on the table because of incompetence and stupidity. There has got to be a way to break the stranglehold, and give the artists more money at every size segment of the market.
Oh just fook 'em. Let 'em have their bloody distribution channels while the rest of us just get drunk and sing along with each as we huddle around the piano. Let's see 'em try and take that away.
My name is Carlos Montoya. You share files of my music. Prepare to die.
"Dealing with the RIAA?"
Well, I suppose that "burn down their corporate offices, flip Rosen's car over, and handcuff yourself to the fence outside Rosen's house demanding that the RIAA be disolved" isn't the answer you were looking for?
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
Maybe this is "evil" of me, but it seems to me when you have to come to a point where you just say, "Fuck the rules".
When we (Americans) attempted to secede from the British empire, did we "play by the rules"? No, we told the British to go fuck themselves, and hid behind trees and picked them off like target practice because they were marching down the middle of the road in bright red coats like dumbasses. In short, they were playing by the *old* rules, and if we had chosen to play their way, we would have gotten our asses kicked.
It seems to me the surest way to lose a battle is to allow your *enemy* to call the shots. And, the RIAA has publicly declared us as their enemy. And don't talk to me about the poor artists...any artist can now self-distribute; because they choose to (paraphrasing from American Beauty) "sell [their] souls and work for Satan just because it's more convenient that way", it's not my problem.
So, I respectfully submit that we should just stop purchasing CDs, plain and simple. And we should stream whatever the hell we want. And we should trade whatever the hell we want. Let's organize a worldwide open source project which creates a P2P file sharing / music organization system specifically designed to trade RIAA-endorsed music for FREE, but has a pay structure for independents.
They can't put us all in jail, and if it's a war they want, let's give it to them. In short, let's prove them right. Make some musicians broke, if that's what it takes. They're part of the problem, anyway, for signing these idiotic contracts in the first place. (If they were truly "artists", they'd realize a bohemian lifestyle is sometimes worth some freedom, just like painters and sculptors and the rest of us.) And then, after enough macaroni and cheese, Sellout Artist X will fucking sign with an alternative organization who gives a shit about artists' needs instead of an organization which was designed, from top to bottom, to rape their every orifice, milk their last breath and throw away their corpse when they're done.
Sure, it'll take a while for the economy to shift, but I've just decided that I'm never going to buy another RIAA-endorsed CD again, unless it's used. In short, I will only buy in ways that prevent royalties from going to them.
It's simple, really: fuck the RIAA. All they are doing is making me *want* to intentionally pirate their music.
Man, when you actually cause your fans to start plotting ways to intentionally fuck you, your PR people and lawyers are really screwing with your future prospects at profitability. (I was a huge music fiend when I was young, and wanted to work in radio, until I found out what a shitty business it is.) Now, I think I like Microsoft more than the RIAA. That's saying a LOT.
So, to end my insane rant, can someone on this board enlighten me as to WHY we should play by the rules?
gameDB
Just how would you act if your store was being looted?
there store is not being looted. as far as i'm concerned, when i buy a cd, it's no longer the riaa's, and they no longer have a say as to what i do with it.
The illegal fileswappers should be ARRESTED
that's your opinion. mine is that people who think that fileswappers should be arrested should THEMSELVES be arrested.
i have no problem causeing the riaa financial harm. i would really, really like to see them go out of business. they are parasites, they are like the mafia of the music world. they produce nothing, it's the artists who do that. all they do is run their racket, harass people with their lawyers, and bribe congresspersons into passing laws favoring them. i hope to see the riaa stomped into the ground in the near future, along with all those who support them.
This DOES equal a loss in revenue.
yes, i agree, and that's why i try to share and copy as much music as possible, that's the most direct way to crush the riaa - attack their revenue stream.
If you are planning on offering the RIAA's music, what do you really have to do to play their music legally?
Step 1: Remove Pants
Step 2: Bend Over
Software Wars
/. readers know about mp3's. Most everyone else doesn't. Why? No mainstream advertising. Few, if any, mainstream artists. In other words, no visibility, hardly anything that people want to buy.
There's a lot more music sold in the world than what the stereotypical Slashdot reader might buy. Even if "independent online music" satisfied their tastes and inclinations, someone needs to advertise and market the fact that it's there. That means advertising, TV commercials, Clear Channnel playlists, and all the other marketing techniques you dismiss.
The RIAA's distribution lock won't be broken until an alternative distribution channel is created that (1) allows musicians to earn an amount comparable to what they'd earn under RIAA auspices; and, (2) gives all music consumers the mainstream music they want.
In other words, college-age buyers may be happy with indie music, but they represent just one part of the market. Other consumers want to buy specific artists and genres that are only available as RIAA products. E.g., if I want to buy a Miles Davis CD first recorded in the '50's, I won't find it on an indie label. If my relatives want to buy a CD by somone they just saw on TV, odds are they want find it on an indie label.
Remember, insulting the people you are trying to influence is a recipe for failure.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
...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.