Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Webcaster Alliance Threatens To Sue RIAA

Posted by timothy on from the let's-get-straight-to-the-smiting dept.

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."

29 of 303 comments (clear)

  1. RIAA Sues Radio Stations for Giving Away Music by Khakionion · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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!
    1. Re:RIAA Sues Radio Stations for Giving Away Music by LostCluster · · Score: 5, Informative

      Recording and radio are two very different models for distributing music. Recorded music is sold in a play-when-you-want-it form that the artist and their promoters expect to be paid for. Radio is the establishment of a channel through which music is pushed, and the artists see this as a promotional vehicle.

      Artists need radio airplay to start their carrers. Hardly anybody will pay to hear an artist they've never heard before, so it's a critical first step in becoming an established artist so they can make sales with CDs and concert tickets. It's the free samples they give away so people will be more likely to buy the products.

      The thing is, the RIAA tries to keep radio stations on a tight leash. If you want to have early access to the hot new song from established artist A, you have to play the songs from the not-yet-known-to-anybody artists B, C, and D. They RIAA tries hard to claim that there's not a specific quid-pro-quo, but everybody knows its the stations that are most cooperative in playing the arists the label wants played that get the most access to that label's popular artists.

      This is why the RIAA would like to see the small time indie webstreamers vanish... if they're playing indie music they'll create demand for the artists who aren't being distributed by the RIAA members, and effectively steal market share from them. If it were possible for an artist to establish credibilty through non-RIAA means such as indie webstreamers and P2P downloads, and then get thier songs onto over-the-air radio stations, that artist could then enter the concert market and bypass the RIAA altogether. The RIAA would like the rule that you must already have an RIAA-published CD before being heard radio channels to hold true because that cements their role in the process, however the technology now exists to promote an artist without ever having a CD... and that's what really scares the RIAA.

  2. In soviet russia.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Monopolistic Corporations sue you.

    Oh wait..

  3. Bout Time by Izago909 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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!!

    1. Re:Bout Time by Qzukk · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Can you substantiate this claim?

      Easily done. The law that enforces the royalties on streaming music (originally CARP, now the Small Webcaster Settlement Act) declares that Soundexchange (A division of the RIAA) to be the official receiver and distributor for all noninteractive digital performance royalties (from their FAQ).

      What I would like to see would be for some small bands to set up their own streams, pay Soundexchange their $500 minimum yearly royalty, then sue Soundforge in small claims court, if Soundforge refuses to pay the full $500 back. In the absence of a contract permitting Soundexchange to keep any of the money, there is no reasonable expectation that any of that money belongs to Soundexchange.

      From those judgements against soundexchange (maybe if enough showed up, a class action suit could be had?), it would be interesting to see where it could go next... perhaps some kind of action against them being the Royal Royalty Collector since they have been shown (by the lawsuits) to be behaving in bad faith, and that an independent company should be responsbile for royalty distribution.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    2. Re:Bout Time by LostCluster · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yep, that's the "statutory royalty" clause.

      Basically, it's the same thing as radio broadcasters. Because it'd be impossible to accurately account for all the micropayments involved, radio stations simply make an all-covering per-listener-times-per-song (take the average number of songs per hour, multiply by hours in a month, multiply by the station's average rating) fee to an group that divides up the money. Some margin of error mistakes happen, but it's a pretty fair system.

      The problem comes that the rate that OTA radio is paying per-listener-per-song is about half of what web streamed radio pays per-lister-per-song, which were the fees that came down and killed most of webstreaming. This group is now accusing the RIAA of cheating during the process that determined the fee to get a more-favorable-to-the-RIAA outcome.

  4. Besides reading slashdot... by Dumbush · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Is there anything we can do to help Wedcaster Alliance on this case

    1. Re:Besides reading slashdot... by darth_MALL · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yes..start calling them the Webcaster Alliance ;)

  5. You'd better watch out, RIAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    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!

  6. classic RIAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:classic RIAA by LostCluster · · Score: 4, Informative

      Typical straw-man situation. They struck a deal with the 13 webcasters most friendly to them, rather than the webscasters that they already ran out of business. They're trying to claim those 13 represent the whole population of webcasters, but they don't.

  7. Sherman Anti-Trust Act Nothing by MBCook · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
  8. Who Are They? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    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."

  9. Commercial vs Non Commercial Radio Stations by GillBates0 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Okay, I've been thinking about this for the last few weeks.

    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
    1. Re:Commercial vs Non Commercial Radio Stations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      They pay royalties to organizations that give money directly to the artists, thus bypassing the record companies! Really!

      BUT, Congress and the FCC decided that webcasting counts as mechanical reproduction, not just broadcasting, so you've gotta pay royalties to the record companies as if you were selling copies of their CDs. (Or offering them for download.)

      This is called *CORUPTION IN THE GOVERNMENT*, boys and girls!

    2. Re:Commercial vs Non Commercial Radio Stations by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There are specific laws for webcasting that are different from those regarding radio broadcasts.

      Why should there be different laws? Otherwise, it would be too cheap to run a webcast! There would be so many different webcasters that advertisers would never know which market was listening to which stations, and labels would have no way to ensure that their product was adequately represented. Mass hysteria! Dogs and cats living together!

      I'm not exaggerating. That's actually the reason. Congress just wanted to bring about "market consolidation."

      ClearChannel only webcasting.

      --

      There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
  10. The grand plan by DigiShaman · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
    1. Re:The grand plan by DeltaSigma · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Underground subcultures are very much aware of this situation. It's generally regarded as a hostile act meant to destroy our culture.

      Allow me to explain. Sometimes a government body's political boundries encompass two very different cultures. In a case where a smaller culture is regarded as a potential threat, problem, or nuisance the government may attempt to breed them out of existance. Sort of a peaceful genocide, it's quite simple. Noone gets killed, noone's locked up, or harmed in any way. However the government creates incentives for businesses to set up in this particular area of the country. Thus the mainstream population moves to this area in pursuit of jobs. Over the years the two cultures interbreed until the differences that once seperated the two cultures are spread so thin that, for all intensive purposes, that culture no longer exists. This is a very real problem that anthropologists are constantly attempting to combat.

      The recording industry, or at least the RIAA, is attempting to do the same thing. They're taking mainstream music, tweaked to sound more punk, metal, gothic, hip-hop or what have you. In the mainstreams pursuit to be an "inDUHvidual" they cling to this facade and claim to be what we are. Over time start-up bands attempt to imitate these fake bands, the media begins to depict this coincidentally (hah) more media-friendly subculture as the true subculture, and over time what we really are and what we're really about is lost in the stream of time.

      For the most part, we've lost punk to this crap already. Oh don't get me wrong I'm sure there's still a few bands and a few isolated groups which fit the original ( and political ) description of punk. However most of the punks I knew became disheartened. Their clothes, music, literature, EVERYTHING, became very difficult to find amidst this mainstream regurgitation.

      Metal's suffering from the same onslaught as we speak. Nu-Metal threatens to destroy another subculture very near and dear to me in time.

      My subculture sees the beginnings of the same thing for us. On the gothic front, the media appears to have chosen a multi-faceted attack with television and the popularization (helped along with a little advertising) of dark television series. Buffy was a very good example. Fashion's a little less hard to pick apart amidst the season's change of fashion obsessions so I won't speak of any direct threat there. Honestly I doubt I could pick those things out if I tried. And, though it seems to have taken them a while, I've heard the RIAA finally has a band calling themselves "gothic" that they're parading around MTV.

      Some might be happy to be rid of us. Indeed there's a great many selfish people who can't see beyond their own form of living. To these people I would express my regret that they could not understand what we are. We're nothing more than a culture which holds valuable its traditions and similarities. By departing from mainstream into the gothic subculture I've learned a lot about society. And despite what mainstream sources will tell you, goths, punks, metal-heads, rivet-heads, etc., are NOT anti-cultures. That is to say, we're don't join the groups we do because we oppose mainstream in its entirety. Rather, we join these groups as they better fit our lifestyle. It was easier for me to make friends amongst goths than it was at random.

      In any event, here's how it relates to you, the reader, if you're not part of a subculture. I mean, if you're totally mainstream this isn't going to hurt you. Are you christian though? Do you like christian music? Yeah, that won't survive if the RIAA gets its way. Actually anything that mainstream, pop/rock advertising doesn't cover will eventually be destroyed if things continue as they have been.

      If you've ever liked something besides pop/rock, I reccomend you invest a bit more in ANY alternative source of music. Be it web distribution, independant labels, classic radio stations, whatever. Support everything that isn't mainstream.

  11. May not turn out as planned by Tha_Big_Guy23 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  12. Hobbyists should pay for their hobby by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
    However John Simson of the RIAA's collection arm, SoundExchange, argues that broadcasters should pay for their hobby.

    "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.


    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.
  13. Lawsuits by $exyNerdie · · Score: 5, Funny


    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 !!

  14. Where do i send my donations? by stang7423 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  15. Re:Music? by JUSTONEMORELATTE · · Score: 4, Funny

    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?

    Oh, sure. Next you'll be telling me that someone can just copyright all possible Phone Numbers?

    --

  16. Re:I have some sympathy for the RIAA by Xcott+Craver · · Score: 5, Informative
    There's a lot to dispute here.

    | Unlike traditional radio it is easy to make copys [sic] of songs that have been webcasted

    As others have pointed out, this is not at all unlike traditional radio. Capturing from an FM radio station probably gives you better quality.

    | and then place them on peer to peer networks such as bittorrent and napster

    Neither of these are presently peer-to-peer networks.

    | What inevitably happens is that people will record internet radio stations all day

    History tells us that this is not what inevitably happens. Nor do people spend all day scanning in library books and thus putting book publishers out of business.

    | and then put all the CD quality songs up for download

    ...definitely not CD-quality songs...

    | thereby harming the music industry.

    Possibly, but I'd like to see more evidence that the distribution of crappy MP3s really cuts into record company sales.

  17. The Endgame by felonious · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  18. I was following you until... by lpret · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I was following you until you said: " they see the RIAA as the master of the market, and lawsuits like these only perpeptuate that control."

    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
  19. Re:Bulshit by AlaskanUnderachiever · · Score: 5, Interesting

    More importantly, they're the most anal retentive paperwork carrying of any broadcaster out there. Try to escape fees and you're going to have to be able to sit down and show EVERY song you played since you went "independent". I should know I worked for one. We had an entire room that was devoted to nothing BUT proving we were 100% legal. Yes you can do it, but you better be prepared to not only fight but have the ammo to figh in the first place.

    --
    Find out about my new childrens book: SS Death Camp Criminal Batallion Go To Monte Carlo For The Massacre
  20. Re:Webcasters continue to sell out freedom, film a by edrugtrader · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  21. Re:Bulshit by LostCluster · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    You missed something here. Signing such a contract giving rights to play to your early recordings before signing an RIAA contract just doesn't happen. Because signing such a deal makes it certain that an RIAA contract isn't coming your way. If you try to promote yourself the RIAA's system, then the RIAA's system will see to it that they are closed to you. Any radio station that plays even a small ammount non-RIAA music is punished by non-access. They'll find whatever artist is hot at the moment in their section of music all over the closest station in format to them in their area. It becomes very hard to compete when your opponent has all of the major artist exclusives such as interviews and local-premire songs and you don't.

    The broadcasters, like you, have no argument here.
    I'm a broadcaster? I didn't know that...

    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.
    Hold on, did you RFTA? The RIAA isn't suing webcasters, a group of webcasters are suing the RIAA for anti-competitive behavior during the legal process that set the webcasting rates because they presented an agreement between the RIAA and the a group "representing the webcasting industry" that didn't include any representation for them, yet they're bound by this statutory price too. They're basically accusing the RIAA of cheating Microsoft-style.