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 /.
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.
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.
I just got a cease and desist from the RIAA for singing along to the radio in my car! Now they want $15 million dollars in royalties for all the songs I've sung over the years -- turns out I am the reason their record sales have slumped!
Word Axis
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?
"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?
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.
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
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!
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:"
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"
... 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.
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"
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.
...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.