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..
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!!
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.
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 !!
what's soma FM?
http://www.somafm.com
enjoy
you're welcome
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.
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 ?
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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
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?
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
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...
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."
I don't like payola either, but they do have every right to do it.
I thought payola was illegal. Wasn't some radio personality in Ohio (I think) dragged in front of congress half a century ago, along with many others, for taking bribes to play music?
If I remember correctly, this guy got a stiff punishment, much more so than peope who admitted to taking several times the ammount he took, because he was playing (and making popular) "black" music?
Another thing that demonstrates how opposed to change the recording industry is would be the ferocity in which it has hung on to the busisness models and practices it adopted from it's mafia roots. Theres an old anecdote about a guy walking by an urban high rise. He sees a black man being hung outside a window by his feet. He asks someone "What's going on up there?". The stranger replies, "Renegotiation his record contract." Who's being hung out the window now?
Besides, I'd like you to find one artist played on somaFM, bassdrive, boups.com, ukbass.xrs.net, or MANY otehrs, that is signed to a label represented by the RIAA. You are being forced to take the word of a self-riteous, monopolistic corporation that they will distribute the money to the people whom deserve it. I will trust them about as far as I can throw them.
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?
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?
jamie zawinski has a great article on webcasting legality on the webpage for his nightclub.
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.
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