Slashdot Mirror
Webcaster Alliance Threatens To Sue RIAA
detroitindustrial writes "The Washington Post reports that the Webcaster Alliance is threatening to sue the RIAA under the Sherman Antitrust Act. In their letter to the RIAA, the Webcaster Alliance alleges that the RIAA and the Voice of Webcasters negotiated in collusion and, 'were apparently intent on either eliminating their competitors and/or raising barriers to entry in the market for small commercial webcasting.' It goes on to say that the RIAA also wanted to eliminate smaller webcasters, who tend to play more independent material, in order to maintain their monopoly on music distribution."
It's about time. The subject line refers to an article on The Onion about RIAA's intolerance for FM radio stations giving away music. Unfortunately, it is a very real problem here on the Internet. Hopefully this, in conjunction with the backlash noted on The Register today (it's on Slashdot's "Register" sidebar), even Joe Sixpack will wake up to the RIAA's ridiculous behavior.
OMG! Wau!
Monopolistic Corporations sue you.
Oh wait..
The next few years are really going to see a jump in self-expression and netbound A/V communications solutions. Anything that blasts the RIAA to prevent them from pulling some shit here is **a good thing**.
It's about damn time. They should have been stopped when they extorted royalties from webcasters who would never play any pop filth that they 'represent'. Why should someone have to pay royalties to a body that doesn't hold any of the rights to the content that's being played?
SomaFM forever!!
"Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned for SEGA. ..."
Is there anything we can do to help Wedcaster Alliance on this case
because if you don't behave, I too will write a letter I won't show you threatening to sue you.
And then I'll tell slashdot. Muahahahaha!
whose acronym is VOW. Or is that just me?
From the article:
"...the RIAA negotiated with a group called Voice of Webcasters, which represented fewer than 15 Internet radio stations..."
This is classic RIAA. IT's funny becuase they wouldn't have so much trouble selling people on the idea of good behavior regarding the copying of music if they themselves were more honest brokers.
Sherman Anti-Trust Act nothing, I bet it wouldn't be that hard to come up with a RICO complaint against them. They sure sound like they're about to cross the edge to me. Do what we tell you (don't download stuff) or we'll make you regret it (erase your hard drive) sure sounds like racateering to me. Do they do anything to try to stop indie lables? If you can't make a RICO complaint against them now, at the rate they're going, I can't help but wonder how long it will be before they do qualify.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
What prevents smaller webcasters from hooking up with those indie labels? A record label can set any license they want. If SuperBanana Records(and the artist) wants to let webcasters play 'It Aint Easy Being Yellow' by the Bananaettes, so be it, right?
Please help metamoderate.
From their FAQ: "Webcaster Alliance was formed to encourage fair treatment and growth for webcasters of all sizes, from the smallest hobbyists to large terrestrial radio stations. Webcaster Alliance works to address the technological, legislative and content development and distribution issues that face webcasters, the streaming media community and streaming media listeners."
If one can sue over copyright infringment based of a reppetitive set of tones, what is to stop someone from generating millions of tonal combintations with a computer copyrighting the lot of them and suing every "artist" that ends up duplicating them?
Do all radio stations have to pay royalties, or only commercial radio stations? I think it's the latter, since our college runs its own non-commercial radio station and they don't have to pay any royalties that I know of.
A majority of the online radio stations are non-commercial, as in, they don't run radio stations for money. Most are run by shoutcast and other hobbyists anyway. So, why should these radio stations have to pay royalties, if their real-world (pardon the expression) counterparts do nt have to?
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
The grand plan in the current music industry is to condition people over many generations to a specific..managible genre of music. AKA SPAM-IN-CAN CorpRock Musak. It makes perfect marketing sense. If you can manage and control what users listen to, then you can better predict your profit margins. Ever notice how all the "Alternative" music sounds the same of the past 15 years? Utter crap. And to add more salt to the wound, there is even talk in the industry to scientifically figure out what waveforms people like...err I mean music for even better corp-rock crap
Life is not for the lazy.
what's soma FM? link? k thx
While their intentions are noble,(Read: It's about time someone went after the RIAA)I don't think that they'll have the money available to pull off an anti-trust lawsuit against the RIAA. The RIAA could probably throw enough money into the lawsuit to keep it in courts for ages. These independant webcasters are going to need some help if they have any chance of pulling this off. I may sound negative, but it's the truth.
If you're looking here for something insightful or thought provoking, you're probably looking in the wrong place.
Although many people here at slashdot don't agree with the RIAA and their anti digital stance I think that we have to have some sympathy with them here. Unlike traditional radio it is easy to make copys of songs that have been webcasted and then place them on peer to peer networks such as bittorrent and napster. What inevitably happens is that people will record internet radio stations all day and then put all the CD quality songs up for download, thereby harming the music industry.
What might be a better idea is to limit webcasting to unsigned bands that need the publicity. In this way we could listen to tracks first before buying and the inevitable piracy would actually work in favour of the music industry.
All that glitters has a high refractive index.
Hobbyists should pay for their hobbies; unless that hobby contributes something to society. A hunter hunts for himself, usually. A photographer takes pictures for his own enjoyment, usually. I am a Paid on Call Firefighter. That's my hobby. And I get 9 dollars an hour when I'm on call and 7 bucks per hour for training. The independent broadcasters contribute to society, too.
The RIAA should be subsidizing them.
Not to sound like trolling but looking at the number of lawsuits being filed these days, legal profession seems very appealing compared to IT and so far it hasn't been affected by outsourcing either !!
They think they can sue the RIAA for not allowing them to play copyrighted material without permission? This is one of the most absurd things I've heard in a while....
Visa/Mastercard merchants filed a class action lawsuit against Visa for FORCING you to process the debit cards. So basically any merchant between 1992 and last year is going to get a piece of the pie.
:)
I think this will ultimately end up being that any person who purchased music, listened to radio, or listened to an online station in a certain time period will get part of a settlement...similar to the Visa case.
When I become president, I'll disband the RIAA for being communist
I don't understand why people think that there's something wrong with two private entities getting together and deciding to act in concert. It's not like they're killing people--they're just trying to make money and hopefully stop people from stealing their stuff.
"Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?"
I make a living off of copyrighted material. These webcasters are forced to ethier stop or go underground becuase of the RIAA. This monopoly has no positive impact on the people outside of the record industry. There motive must be to keep the real radio and new services like XM alive. Therefore internet radio must be stopped. Thanks to ole Sherman, we don't have to take their trash.
The RIAA has gotten out of control. This suit looks like ond of the best counter attacks that has been launched against the RIAA. Now I want to give some of my hard earned money that would have otherwise (according to the RIAA) gone for recorded music to help support the legal fees of their oppostion.
I think that this is a step in the right direction. More groups should be challenging the stranglehold that the RIAA currently has on the music industry, and this is a good beginning.
This isn't just about getting free music, either, nor is it about not having to hear "crappy pop music" on the radio or whatever. It's about the RIAA and the major labels screwing over their artists and everyone else on the planet in the name of making a buck. Their business model simply isn't effective anymore.
I think we need to see more moves like this, and then things will finally start to change.
Unless you were being sarcastic, could you elaborate? It seems to me that they're complaining more about anti-competitive behavior (gee, we haven't heard this before) than what SCO is doing (everything to survive).
but illegal no sadly not, in fact it is legal and the LAW OF THE LAND. After all our elected/payed official have stood up for the rights of those that put them in office and made a broad statement, that the average netzine is a HACKER, a THIEF who given any chance will steal anything, ohhh and we are all terrorist supporters, are anti american way, hate god and most of us are sexual deviants in some way or the spam would not be soo bad...If we will just step aside, let the government and corporation 'fix' things for us everything will get better, AND/OR people will stop complaining so much....
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
Reputed "small man" David has taken on the aptly named Goliath. Stay tuned, we'll have the results at midnite!
but your comment obviously shows that you do
for the other idiots who wouldn't know what DoS means, it stands for a "Denyal of Service" attack.
(no one, except that idiot, still uses the old ms "disk operating system". Finally, if you don't know about an acronym, you can look it up on www.acronymfinder.com
They'll get about as far as Kazaa did. The RIAA is a legal juggernaut. They have a bottomless pit of money to work with.
The RIAA by far looks to be the greediest of all in corporate america. There sure should be more musicians like Tom Petty out there who need a little support in tuning down the greed.
As long as the small stations can survive we will have music
There are two kinds of egotists: 1) Those who admit it 2) The rest of us
Thank you for your deep contribution to this /. discussion.
Laws are for people with no friends.
In a related article it was stated that DTV pays royalties of 6.5% of revenue for their digital broadcasts. I inferred from the article that traditional radio stations pay much less percentage wise. Canadian radio stations pay 1.4% of total revenue, if I am not mistaken.
Now, if we assume that the minimum royalty rate for a small web broadcaster of $2000 represents 6.5% of revenue then the RIAA assumes that a small webcaster produces about $31,00 of revenue per year, or about $2600 a month. The question is, does that seem like a reasonable assumption? I don't think any small webcaster makes anything close to that, if anything at all after salaries, equipment costs, etc. This leaves established radio stations or corporations with money as the only players in the game, small webcasters are completely out of it financially. I wonder what percentage of revenue the RIAA thinks $2000 dollars represents for a small webcaster.
What they want is the "freedom" to give even more hype to the same old shit the RIAA is already peddling; To help further enlave us all to the old Hollywood lobby.
There is a world of music out there, much of it completely unrepresented in the US - artists that would LOVE exposure from these "independant broadcasters." Yet these alleged "independants" don't care for that - no, they want "the right" to help spread the boy band gospel.
Fuck the RIAA... and fuck these online broadcasters. Maybe they'll sue each other into oblivion and we can be rid of all of it.
Without organizations like the RIAA and BMI, I wouldn't recoup even 10% of the royalties I'm owed. I don't have an album in stores, so when one of my beats gets played, it's not a case of "hey, free advertising for his album." I need to be payed for those spins, and the RIAA has been nothing short of nice when it comes to helping me iron out copyright and legal issues.
There might be other factors, of course. Monopolistic price-fixing, monotonous pop music, minimal marketing of non-pop music, and the generally weak economy, for example...
Build stuff. Stuff that walks, stuff that rolls, whatever.
With the web causing such a revolution in the market (not just music) makes me wonder what things will look like say 10 years down the line. Act now and let not the corporate world take too big a bite out of it or it is we who will lose.
No, they represent the companies that own the rights to the recordings, and these companies entered into this arrangement of their own free will. There are some labels not represented by the RIAA; presumably, the stations are free to seek their own deal with them individually. So what angle are you taking on this - I don't like payola either, but they do have every right to do it.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
There's nothing at all stopping these "broadcasters" from playing non-RIAA label music. There's no way the RIAA can prevent it. And this fact is irrelevant, because it's not the non-RIAA music these "indies" want. The RIAA is fighting to retain control of their own poduct - they cannot control product to which they have NOT paid for rights.
The broadcasters, like you, have no argument here. If they want to play music from unsigned artists, they can. And if they would sign those artists to contracts before the RIAA gets to them, granting them rights to play given works no matter what, then the RIAA couldn't even prevent it after they signed the artists.
But the artists aren't going to do that because they see the RIAA as the master of the market, and lawsuits like these only perpeptuate that control.
These "independant broadcasters" are enemies of the revolution.
and if a frog had wings, he wouldn't bump his ass when he hopped.
All ideas exist outside of time. Nobody creates any idea. This is why copyright is illogical.
-Libertarian secular transhumanist
YAY!!!!!!
right on. fight the power.
and fuck the RIAA.
I hate to say it, but I gotta go with the RIAA on this one. If they want unencumbered rights to distribute music, they should get truly independent artists, i.e. artists that have never had anything to do with any RIAA company.
When will everyone wake up and realize that when they buy cd's, tapes, etc. that they are indirectly supporting the RIAA? Yes we all love music but we risk our musical freedom buying the products the RIAA sells. I have almost 1000 store bought cd's but I can no longer buy them from such a monopolistic, evil diety as the RIAA.
They want to dictate who, what, when, where, why and how I buy and listen to my music. It's my fucking choice and they have forced me to boycott all they sell. I can get anything I want free so I'll go back to that method.
Sueing your customers into a lifelong debt is unjustified and narrowminded bullshit in it's basis. By setting examples in ruining the avergae person's financial life is completely uncalled for and I will not have any part in supporting these fucks in buying their products.
If anyone has any self-respect or ethics then they'll also refuse to support this ridiculous entity called the RIAA. We stop buying they start to get the message.
Fuck the RIAA...you can't shit where you eat...unless you're Hilary Rosen:)
You aren't free to do anything, until you've lost everything.
I don't see how a lawsuit against them will help them. If you mean that it acknowledges that they are indeed the top dog, that has already been conceded by all parties.
But I will say that after listening to internet radio, not only has my musical taste become more mature, but I have bought more CDs since these groups cannot be found on P2P. Indie groups are the future of music -- and the RIAA is scared of the future because it will trump their pop music.
This is my digital signature. 10011011001
they are not lobbying for the rights to play the RIAA's product... they are demanding that they not pay the "RIAA webcaster surcharge fee" if they don't play RIAA music. they are doing exactlly what you are bitching about them to do. the RIAA basically got the government to believe that if you are playing music over the airwaves, it must be the RIAA's music and thus they deserve a cut of the fees. with airwaves that is easy, the FCC charges you to broadcast and gives some to the RIAA. with the internet there is no FCC getting paid so the RIAA wants the same money from the web caster even if they aren't playing RIAA music.
The college stations don't have to pay because colleges are a state protected institution.
MARIJUANA, SHROOMS, X: ONLINE?! - E
Go go Proton Radio...
SomaFM rocks. So does bassdrive.com
This is my digital signature. 10011011001
ROCK ON!!!!
Support monetarily, or writing your congressmen (and women) or any other expertise you might have. Do what you can, it can only help.
This is my digital signature. 10011011001
I am fully in favor of music creators being able to collect payment for their work. However, there needs to be some fairness between over-the- air broadcasters and over-the-net webcasters.
I fail to see any reason why the artist or label is entitled to more payment because the "broadcaster" is using the Internet to deliver the music.
The Anti-trust act may be fully applicable if the real point is that the RIAA and record labels prefer the over-the-air broadcasters (with heavily concentrated ownership) to the truly independent webcasters.
And anyone who believes that radio broadcasters exercise "independent" judgement in their selection of music obviously never listens to the radio.
I'm studying business law, and stuff like this is what I know best. These guys have as much chance as a snowball in hell.
I wish it were otherwise, but the odds are against them.
How small a thought it takes to fill a whole life
Now THAT was funny. Good show, chap.
It's not stupid. It's advanced.
Why do you care about any of this? Those affected by the RIAA's activities are playing pop trash anyway and the world would be better off without yet another outlet for it.
Those who are playing independant artists have nothing to worry about.
Why does this discussion happen over and over?
Actually, we have stopped buying, and they do get the message. But in their perverse corner of our universe they twist the message into, "we need more laws to protect our profits!".
Long and short - the RIAA has got to be broken up. The DMCA has go to go.
The RIAA knows that they have been ripping everyone off with the price of CD's since they came on the scene. The public did not know, and now that Joe Sixpak does know, he's pissed. He looks at that stack of Time-Life specials, realizes just how much he's gotten fucked in the ass, and wants to return the favor. He doesn't have money to sue, but he sure can download the [Nap,Grok,AIM,MAD]ster software and start picking up everything he ever wanted...
Funny thing is, if the RIAA just allowed people to download the song they wanted for $0.50 for "hits" (last 6 months), and $0.25 for "oldies" (>= 6 months, 1 day), everyone would just BUY the damn things. The RIAA's distribution costs would drop dramatically, and they could return to an obscure, behind-the-scenes trade group rather than a flagrant, on-the-edge-of-the-stage bunch of lawyer-happy schmucks.
The whole business model for music (and eventually movies as well) is changing, and these fools have to be told to either change with it, or go the way of the dodo bird...
I agree, but that's basically what statutory licensing is all about.
Anyway, here is the proof you asked for. It's in section 114(b)(2) of the Copyright Code.
Link
However, as far as I can tell, if the webcaster takes the time to negotiate licenses with individual copyright holders they can avoid these statutory royalties under Section 112(e)(5):
Link
SomaFM is the bomb.
sulli
RTFJ.
> "The average hunter spends around $1,800 per year on their hobby. How much do photographers spend?" he told us. "It's all well and good to run a hobby, but Kodak doesn't give out free film. It's only right to pay a reasonable fee," he said.
Ok, I'll bite, lets say that this statement holds true, what means that I have to pay the RIAA if I dont have any content that they have copyright over? Lets say I handle stuff off of Dischord Records, or Subpop, or some other smaller non-RIAA label? I wouldnt mind contributing to their cause, since its THEIR material that I'm involved in. How about that for a comprimise which they wont like, AND furthers the indie labels. ^_^
We don't need an "overrated" so much as we need a "you completely missed the parent's point, dumbass..."
Of course you must miss your punk bitch boot boys in the joint.They like black cock as much as you?
you know that they scream "hiel hitler" during an anal orgasm, at least all the ones i fucked have.
only cost me a square.
Well dang it....it had to happen some time :-)
/. while I'm at work..
Gotta stop reading
This is going to be the rubber ducky that took on the shark. While I am rooting for the rubber ducky in this case, I know the shark is going to eat it.
The only thing I can hope for is that the Rubber ducky gets stuck in the Shark's colon and gives it cancer.
On Wall Street they say "buy low, sell high" On the pad we say, "buy high, sell high" Isn't that somehow better?
You're placing too much emphasis on that "indepedence" thing.
Radio stations carry programming that they think will appeal to their audience. Some stations go after a broad mainstream market, so they program mainstream music. That music happens to be contolled by the RIAA, but even if it wasn't, they'd still play it.
So-called independent stations and webcasters also carry programming to attract their chosen audience. If this turns out to be cheaper non-RIAA music, perhaps the cheapness has more to do with it being played by these stations than the "independent" status.
The objective of every broadcaster, commercial and non-commercial, is to attract and keep an audience. If the station puts being independent ahead of playing something the audience likes, it will flounder.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Let me preface this by saying it's not goatse. This is funny as hell though. RIAA Personified Maybe it will feel the wrath of being slashdotted?
You aren't free to do anything, until you've lost everything.
...you have it all wrong. They don't have a snake, serpent, or supernatural entity as their acronym. Hence, they're OK.
Now, if they were something like R.A.T.T.L.Sn.A.K.E., we'd automatically know that they're an evil, shadowy organization controlled by a man in a veil.
Don't forget, the record industry is getting hit on TWO fronts-production and distribution. As the prices for audio software and hardware falls (~$1500 for a starter studio rig), almost anyone can produce music if they know how or have a friend who does. With the internet, you have worldwide distribution (if you can get people to listen) Filtering mechanisms like blogs can be used to establish "music cooperatives." These cooperatives could actively promote music for AND raise money for contributing artists by selling records/songs directly. The record company's are the ultimate middlemen. They DO provide promotion services and front tour money. However,more often than not, this money comes out of the artist's royalty earnings. I trust the collective judgement of millions of musiclovers to sort the cream from the crap(to mix some metaphors) For artists', the best way to make money is consistently put on a great show and deliver music that defines a scene. The open source community should work on tools to further both the production, distribution, AND COMPENSATION aspects of music.
harmonious design
Copyright isn't about ideas. It's about the expression of ideas
There are also a limited number of expressions.
temporary monopoly
Temporary? Ha. Not as long as DIS is listed on NYSE.
Copyright is supposed to be about a reward system as a means to an end, the end being "to promote the progress of science and useful arts" (U.S. Const. I.8.8). The entertainment industry puppets in the USA and EU legislatures have contorted it into something else.
Will I retire or break 10K?
the Government Information Awareness website
Too bad I really dont think they have much of a chance against the RIAA's money bags. I think anyone that supports this effort should put their money where their mouth is. I mean if you are adamant enough to boycott the RIAA arent you saving at least $15 that could go to a good cause such as this?
"At first, we thought it was just another snake cult."
Great idea. It would even work if every radio station were independently owned and operated, trying to maximize its revenue in honest competition.
You need to review some recent FCC "rulings" (i.e. adminstrative acts of sabotage against the spirit of the law that they are supposed to be enforcing).
Over the 95 years of copyright, the music publishers have already done that, employing thousands of songwriters to write the estimated 9 million songs in the collective catalogs of BMI, ASCAP, and SESAC. In my journal, I've predicted how this could cause a chilling effect on songwriting.
Will I retire or break 10K?
It doesn't matter if you're right or wrong, the person who wins is the person who has the most money. Of course, when people talk about IBM doing this to SCO it's all ok, but am I the only one to see this as a fundamental problem with the US's legal system?
You'd think in a free society that the owner of a copyrighted work could choose the price to allow it to be broadcast. Not so in the USA, however. Antitrust is an affront to basic freedoms. You do not have a right to someone elses work at a price of your choosing.
Vote for Pedro
If they want unencumbered rights to distribute music, they should get truly independent artists
I can't help but agree with you on this one.
The RIAA has every right to run themselves and thier artists into the ground if they want to.
I wish movements like the Webcaster Alliance would take the reigns in these situations and decide to not play the music that is unfairly offered.
There are more independent artists than contracted artists. Many of these artists rely on mp3 distribution and webcasting to promote the sale of thier CDs and live performances. Use these links to get started.
The RIAA makes me sick, but stealing thier shit or sucking up to them for a better deal is not the way to change things. Instead we should find ways to make them (and thier member companies) irrelevant.
Read, L
Wrong. the RIAA has no control over unlicensed music. The RIAA can no more prevent me from sharing my own music than it can prevent you from sharing my music that I shared with you.
These "indies" are fighting explicitly for the right to broadcast commercial music already owned by RIAA affiliate members. Apparently you didn't RTFA, so I will quote for you the relevant part right here...
However, to be commercially viable, the Alliance believes that small webcasters need a mix of Mainstream Material and Independent Material. The Alliance is concerned that recent developments in the market for Mainstream Material have seriously jeopardized the commercial viability of its members by eliminating the ability to stream a commercially significant amount of Mainstream Material.
Ergo, I said...
Wait... RIAA... Lawsuits... But no P2P? What the heck?!?!
Is it just me, or is anyone else really suprised to see an article mentioned on /. bashing the RIAA with absolutly NO reference to P2P?
I smell endtimes. That, or the RIAA now has two reasons for people to dislike them, probably enough for people to start using associated words as curses.
"Oh 'Rosen,' I have a Virus! 'RIAA' this 'lawsuit against piracy' software!"
Not as catchy as "'Gates' this 'Microsoft' piece of 'Windows'!"
But this all goes to show, in the end, the only thing on the RIAA's agenda is to abolish all real music. Listen to some of the modern artists (and pay the price for the cd) under the RIAA, and you'll know what I mean.
Your first sentence will be clearer if it is broken into two, since it really needs two verbs:
It is immoral, unethical, but sadly not illegal. In fact, it is legal, and the law of the land.
See how we used bold for emphasis? Most people recommend italics, but bold also works well, and is more in keeping with the style of your original post.
Now, the run-on sentence. Lets take this in chunks again:
Our elected, paid officials have stood up for the rights of those that put them in office, and made a broad statement.
That's a good opener, shorter and easier to digest. I corrected payed vs paid. That's an easy mistake to make, pay is one of those special cases you just have to watch out for. Still, its a good one to know, because if you send your editor a note saying, "When do I get payed?", she's likely to write the response on a small pink slip. On to the next part.
That statement is that the average netizine is a hacker, a thief, a terrorist supporter, against the american way, and hate god.
Again, notice the bold for emphasis, it helps bring out your two large points. I think you got 'netzine' (a web location, like Wired) confused with 'netizen', so I fixed that as well.
In addition, they claim that most of us are sexual deviants in some way or the spam would not be so very bad.
Here, I've included the pronoun 'they' to remind our readers who we're talking about, and reworded 'soo bad' to 'so very bad', as stretching words doesn't usually add to understanding. Now for the final one:
They want us to believe that if we will just step aside and let the goverment and the corporations "fix" things for us everything will get better. Or at least people will stop complaining so much.
Again, I included the pronoun to really drive home that we're talking about someone else, and that someone else is our elected officials. You may note that corporations (plural) is generally used with 'government' to make it clear that you're not talking about any one corporation, but all of them in general.
Lastly, I broke out your conjunction into a new sentence starting with 'at least', which conveys the same meaning as AND/OR, but is much more readable. Also, since it is short, it makes a much stronger ending.
Here's the reworked comment in its entirety:
Finally, note my use of a paragraph break to separate the politicians' belief about the netizens from their wishes for the netizens' beliefs. This is a subtle difference, and breaking it into two paragraphs helps clue the reader into the notion that they're separate points, and makes it easier to re-read sections of your post.
Hopefully this has helped your understanding of grammar and some approaches to writing styles. Next time you're flaming from the hip, try putting these ideas to use! I think you'll be suprised how the combination of passionate words with clear understanding can really make your point clear. Even when its on the top of your head.
GrammarFairy dust for you:
'..,".'"..,".,",.'
Any time is good, really. Just tell him to knock first. I might be in the middle of something.
Thanks
...how can RIAA prohibit independent webcasting, if no RIAA client songs are broadcast? I'm much too lazy to start my own I-radio station, but if this gets stupid enough, I may rethink.
Internet broadcasting requires three things: an internet connection, something to broadcast, and the software to do so. Everything that is "broadcast" in this context must pass through that "software" part therefore it would be awfully damn easy to make that "software" part log every file it played. It doesn't take an "entire room" - it doesn't even take "an entire computer." All it takes is one piece of software. If none of these broadcasters have the resources to construct such software, I suspect they need only ask for it in, say, the user forum at knoppix.net.
Oh, and a big "fuck you" to the idiot who modded my first reply here a "troll." The only fact in that guy's post was, maybe, his /. nick...
Microsoft uses $40 billion pile of cash to buy RIAA. When questioned about the controversial move a spokesman was quoted as saying "We couldn't resist, we just liked their style."
and for a bonus point, can you share with us mere mortals why that might be?
Paul "Say no to feeping creaturism"
This is true; the copyrights on the songs themselves are generally owned by the artists and administered by ASCAP, BMI, or an equivalent organization. Many popular songwriters earn a decent living on the monthly royalties collected on their songwriting credits long after the recordings are no longer valuable.
Thats what they need. Torch em....
It appears to me that this dispute is over the royalties that the RIAA has set for playing their licensed music (As opposed to a few posts I read which claimed the RIAA expected royalties on anything played over the internet).
However, to be commercially viable, the Alliance believes that small webcasters need a mix of Mainstream Material and Independent Material. The Alliance is concerned that recent developments in the market for Mainstream Material have seriously jeopardized the commercial viability of its members by eliminating the ability to stream a commercially significant amount of Mainstream Material
I personally think its these "Alliance" members who are in the wrong. They claim that in order to run a successful business, they need to play Mainstream music which belongs to other people, and that those other people are charging them too much to play something they don't own. In a capitalist society, the RIAA has the right to set whatever price they wish, and enter into agreements with whomever they wish and on whatever grounds they agree on. I don't think that because i've managed to develop a successful company, I should be forced to charge people a lesser rate for my product because people can't afford it. These 'Alliance' members realized that they aren't going to make any money off of artists nobody has heard of, and so now they want a piece of what the RIAA has built. These webcasters should look into an alternative business model, or try to find a new way to do something that would have value to people, instead of looting from an established company. Oh wait, I forgot, hardly any webcasters make a profit... so why are we here in the first place?
Sales are down maybe not as a sole result of p2p's, but they definately have a significant impact. Everywhere you go, people don't buy cd's, they download them. I'm not saying we should stop p2p, I would hate to have to start buying music again, too, but I think it's ridiculous for people to still say P2P networks aren't used for copying music and it's not affecting the music industry.
Here Here...the airwaves have been stolen and totally disfigured by the FCC and the big RECORD companies, as well as CLEAR CHANNEL....Defend them how you wish....there is no way in GOOD conscious you can claim that these people are not totaly distorting everything that was originally intended for the airwaves....lest you forget we the people own the airwaves...not these companies or government agency...
. I love the sound of burning women and screaming rubber....
Neither [BitTorrent nor Napster] are presently peer-to-peer networks.
More precisely: BitTorrent and OpenNap are centralized with respect to search but peer-to-peer with respect to file transfers. They have the P2P advantage of scalable bandwidth but lack the P2P advantage of immunity to legal or technical threats. Besides, s/BitTorrent/eMule/ and grandparent's point remains valid to an extent.
Nit: Any song is CD quality once recorded in a professional studio by competent engineers. A coded recording of that song, on the other hand, may not be CD quality. Remember that a "song" is sheet music, and a "recording" is what you find in the music [sic] section of Best Buy. I do agree with your point that the audio clarity of most recordings broadcast over FM or the Internet is nowhere near what Compact Disc Digital Audio is capable of.
I'd like to see more evidence that the distribution of crappy MP3s really cuts into record company sales.
The try-before-you-buy aspect of copying a single recorded song at a time keeps people from buying albums that have only a couple good tracks on them. The labels can adapt by abandoning the business model of tying in favor of something based around singles.
Will I retire or break 10K?
The present suit does not accuse RIAA of "not allowing [webcasters] to play copyrighted material without permission" but rather of not allowing them to play copyrighted material without paying twice. Traditional FCC-licensed AM and FM radio stations must pay performance rights organizations such as BMI, ASCAP, and SESAC for the right to broadcast copyrighted songs[1]. Internet broadcasters, on the other hand, must pay both the performance rights organizations and the record labels.
[1] A "musical work", or "song" for short, consists of a sequence of notes, along with any accompanying harmonies and lyrics. A "sound recording" consists of the sound of a performance of a musical work.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Do [RIAA members] have the patent on music, or something?
Actually, Sony is an RIAA member, and Sony does hold several patents related to the Compact Disc Digital Audio standard.
artists that have never had anything to do with any RIAA company.
If your stereo system was made by Sony, then you have done business with an RIAA and MPAA member. If you have a Sony CD recorder or have used Sony CD-R media, then you have done business with an RIAA and MPAA member. If you shot your album cover with a Sony digital camera, then you have done business with an RIAA and MPAA member. Sure, Sony Electronics and Columbia Records are quite autonomous within Sony Corporation, but they still share profits under NYSE:SNE. Likewise, if you connect to the Internet through AOL or Road Runner, then you have done business with Warner Communications, an RIAA and MPAA member.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Really what is the difference?
With my FTP radio station, I have 3,000 + stations and they each play one song over and over. And if you have the right software you can even record that song as you listen to it, just like on FM... It's just a lot easier...
So why make a bother with webcasters with their puny 3 and 4 channel stations with only 128k streams, when you can come to my FTP radio station and get 1mb streams and keep the songs?
All you need is a full duplex audio card and you can record the streams with any basic audio software anyways.. this is all very silly..
jamie zawinski has a great article on webcasting legality on the webpage for his nightclub.
You hit it on the nose with Clear Channel. If you have a new artist you want to shop, you basically pay them a certain amount and they will guarantee you a certain position on the charts. They can do this because they pretty much own all the radio stations. I have seen this kind of nonsense with my own eyes. The music/broadcasting business is corrupt (not like everybody didn't already know this).
(There used to be something clever here.)
I think they sum it up real well.
express certain concerns that the Alliance has concerning certain actions of the RIAA
Sounds like he's very certian
someone needs to stop the RIAA from becoming a micro$oft.
besides, they put out crap anyhow, what happened to being original and innovative?
seems like these days the new thing is to suppress innovation, or anything new. unless you control the purse strings, of course.
Actually they have. DMusic.com and the Webcasters Alliance recently started working together to offer the WA members indie music.
Your figure is wrong by a zero, where you have written how much the RIAA assumes a small webcaster produces a year of revenue per year.
I calculated the given $2600 x 12 = $31.200,00 (thirty-one thousand two hundred dollars).
The same way they can get paid for every blank cassette sold, including the voice grade ones I use for recording lectures. The same way they get paid for every blank audio CD sold, including those I record my newborn baby's gurgles into.
See, this has been going on for YEARS already...
they already GET paid even though it's entirely possible that (copyrighted) music will never be recorded on the medium in question.
What I'd like to know is why renting CD's was made a federal crime in the 1980's when renting movies isn't. If I own something, then why can't I rent it out? It IS mine after all!!!
Here's the one group of people that are in a position to promote things other than RIAA meat puppet muzak, and what are they spending their tiny or non-existent incomes on? Hardware? Bandwidth? Promotions? Actually buying indie CDs? Nope, they're spending their money on lawyer's fees.
If they lose, they go out of business. They have to go out of business to win. The RIAA wins either way, as do the lawyers. Independent artists, as usual, get screwed either way.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
What are you smoking? The FCC doesn't give a rat's ass about the RIAA, nor does the FCC give them any money.
The FCC only collects fees for licensing of a radio station. These fees go toward maintaining records, ensuring compliance with FCC rules, and other administrative tasks.
Also, college stations are required to pay the same FCC fees as all other radio stations.
Finally, the FCC does make money off of the Internet. If you have DSL, you have to pay FCC fees on your phone line. The FCC also charges all kinds of fees for Internet filing of forms, license renewals, and other Internet conveniences.
The FCC has nothing to do with royalties, the RIAA, or anything of the like.
Firstly, he said he worked for a radio station, not ran a Shoutcast stream. Secondly, I too worked for an independent (college) radio station, and can corroborate that YES, YOU DO have to record the title, artist, and time whenever you broadcast something. This is not a problem of organization, this is official FCC rules.
Your argument is exactly like me never recording any purchases, and when the IRS audits you, saying, "Well come on over and check out my place, I couldn't logically have any expenditures besides what's in my house!". It's a matter of law, not of file structures.
--- What
The FCC rulings can't affect s station's objective to hold an audience. This applies to ClearChannel and the like as much as it does to a 250-watt college station with an audience of a few hundred.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
How does the RIAA get away with price fixing? They set the rates for all their members right? Someone should be able to negotiate with individual labels. Ever heard of competition guys?
Suck a donkey's cock.
I do really hope they will win.
Karma: Positive (probably because of superiour intellect)
tell me about it...
Tired old jokes get sick of YOU
Dead horses beat you, too.
so what you're saying is i successfully got a +5 troll? i'll use your post for verification so i get my points.
MARIJUANA, SHROOMS, X: ONLINE?! - E
There is a PayPal account on the Webcaster Alliance homepage. Any donation is appreciated.
Help us fight the RIAA!
Brian Hurley
Webcaster Alliance
In a capitalist society, the RIAA has the right to set whatever price they wish, and enter into agreements with whomever they wish and on whatever grounds they agree on.
The USA is not a capitalist society. In this country, we have a regulated market. The government can decide to intervene in an industry if it serves the national inrterest. In the 1980's Reagan intervened in the private dispute between traffic controllers and the airlines, and fired the striking controllers. In a capitalist society, the government would have been powerless to intervene in that private labor dispute.
The government can intervene here, too. Don't let Ayn Rand kid you, free markets have never existed in modern civilizations.
Edith Keeler Must Die
Or very concerned...
Independent musicians and registration-free net radio at EmergentSound
I don't know why it took you months to "revenge foe" me, but I just got the "relationship change" notice and went to see what you posted recently. Your stupid sig spam is why I put you on my foe list, but your posts suck too. While I'm flaming, get of your lazy ass and use the shift key once and a while. It's not hard. If you think your comments are worth reading, why not make the readable?
After reading this I thought.. "that sounds interesting, but... wrong" and I pondered it all and thought "if you're to pay 0.07 cent per song per listener, and if we have this fee because webcasting is classified as redistribution (storage) and not broadcast in the radio-sense..." well, then wouldn't it be possible to implement a distributed radio system. I googled for "distributed webcasting" but none of the hits sounded like what I was thinking about.
Simply: The webcast is distributed so that each listener serves at least one other listener with the same data he's recieving (think "like BitTorrent"). In essence, we have a digital version of listening in on your neighbour. Since we have N webcasters (I assume all it takes is software to become a "webcaster") each serving one (or a small set of) listener -- as apposed to 1 webscater serving N listeners, they won't have to pay anything?
You could argue that this creates a tree where the root is still serving all N listeners, but I think there's a possibility -- however slight -- that this would in fact stand up to scrutiny by the "webcasting laws".
The core argument is that since it's already classified as redistribution, node N pays for N+1, and that's that. N doesn't know if N+1 just listenes to the stream, stores it on his computer, or redistributes it... but if he redistribute it, that is up to N+1, and N has already paid the fee associated with that possible act?
Technically you'd need some way for each listener to announce open slots, but I honestly don't think latency would be a big deal -- in fact it only underscores the point that there isn't one distince webcaster paying the bill, there are N of them.
I'm sure someone smarter than myself has already argued/refuted this...?
Belief is the currency of delusion.