Slashdot Mirror
How to Legally Infuriate the RIAA?
An anonymous reader shot us off a link to an article discussing how to use the RIAA's System to Broadcast Music Legally. Now, I'm no lawyer, but if the facts are correct in this article, we're talking about a price point that makes streaming radio extremely inexpensive. There's a lot of worthless spite in this article, but if you can look past that, you might see something worth thinking about.
Here's a mirror:
.07 cents per song per listener. For the math challenged, if you have 100,000 listeners, you pay 70 cents per song. That can add up quickly, unless you are a US commercial FM station, where your bill probably won't exceed $4 a day due to necessary commercial time. If you still think this is bad news, bear with me a little longer.
By Charlie Demerjian: Saturday 12 July 2003, 15:00
THE RIAA is one of the most evil organizations on the planet. From the schemes that they have implemented, to the ones that they proposed, it is quite obvious to even the most casual observer that the planning committee of the RIAA has thought processes that would make a sadistic North Korean prison warden cringe. I will assume that you know about the lawyer wielding antics that have brought them to fame, the political curiosities that scurry from the legislative process like roaches every time you shine a light on them, and the other games they play. If you want a good start, go to Slashdot, and do a search for RIAA.
You will notice that I haven't used the term $!#£@*rs yet, the journalistic guidelines of The Inquirer will not allow the use of that term in reference to anyone who has more lawyers than we do. Damn. Those journalistic guidelines also state that I should disclose any biases that I may hold regarding the subject of my writing. Here goes, I don't like the RIAA much. I will however begrudgingly admit that I find their novel use of lawyers worthy of respect, in a Mussolini made the trains run on time sort of way.
Most people simply ignore the rantings and screed of the RIAA, it is easy (see here). If you do the math, and they make good on their threats to sue "thousands" of P2P users, the odds of any one of the 35 million plus users of Kazaa, not to mention the dozens of other networks, being sued are on the order of one in 10,000. Think roughly the odds of being trampled by a herd of zebra above the Arctic Circle, while being hit by a meteor and lightning. Oh yeah, those threats are going to matter.
A few brave individuals do something about it. They either spend their time, money, and effort to change the laws, or protest. You would think that more people would stand up to protect their legal rights from being trampled, but alas, we live in a world of really really dumb sheep.
Have you done anything, or do you just hope the odds don't catch up to you? I am not talking about hanging one of those little Christmas Tree air fresheners in "zebra repelling" scent in your car, but I mean really doing something, whether it is as simple as writing a physical letter to your Congressperson, or showing up at a local capital for a debate? Probably not, this is why we at Inquirer Labs US are going to do something for you.
As you know, the RIAA generously, with a flourish of backroom deals, set rates for webcasting songs. Curiously, they seem to have set them several times higher than what traditional radio stations pay. These rates are so high that only the largest commercial webcasters can pay them, more or less putting the smaller, worthwhile stations out of business. One would have to conclude that this was not by coincidence. We can all look forward to a vast wasteland of webcasting that resembles the sad state of FM radio in the US. Yipee, time for suicide if you liked music.
Why is this good news? Well, there is a gold hidden in the RIAA's moneygrubbing, power mad jihad, lots of gold. A closer look at the webcast rates shows that it charges
The last piece of the puzzle is that the RIAA has gone after P2P networks with a vengeance, breeding hatred on a level rarely seen in modern times. No one, even most artists who they supposedly represent, likes them. Most people out there would happily pay a few dollars a year to put an end to them. Other than a donation to the EFF, what is one to do? Enter Inquirer Labs US.
We (OK, you saw through this, me) at Inquirer Labs US propose a new webcasting radio station, or a whole lot of them.
i am so lame
How to infuriate the RIAA and stay enragingly legal
.07 cents per song per listener. For the math challenged, if you have 100,000 listeners, you pay 70 cents per song. That can add up quickly, unless you are a US commercial FM station, where your bill probably won't exceed $4 a day due to necessary commercial time. If you still think this is bad news, bear with me a little longer.
Opinion Charlie D comes up with a cunning scheme
By Charlie Demerjian: Saturday 12 July 2003, 15:00
THE RIAA is one of the most evil organizations on the planet. From the schemes that they have implemented, to the ones that they proposed, it is quite obvious to even the most casual observer that the planning committee of the RIAA has thought processes that would make a sadistic North Korean prison warden cringe. I will assume that you know about the lawyer wielding antics that have brought them to fame, the political curiosities that scurry from the legislative process like roaches every time you shine a light on them, and the other games they play. If you want a good start, go to Slashdot, and do a search for RIAA.
You will notice that I haven't used the term $!#£@*rs yet, the journalistic guidelines of The Inquirer will not allow the use of that term in reference to anyone who has more lawyers than we do. Damn. Those journalistic guidelines also state that I should disclose any biases that I may hold regarding the subject of my writing about Cmdr Taco's exploits with young pacific-rim boys. Here goes, I don't like the RIAA much. I will however begrudgingly admit that I find their novel use of lawyers worthy of respect, in a Mussolini made the trains run on time sort of way.
Most people simply ignore the rantings and screed of the RIAA, it is easy (see here). If you do the math, and they make good on their threats to sue "thousands" of P2P users, the odds of any one of the 35 million plus users of Kazaa, not to mention the dozens of other networks, being sued are on the order of one in 10,000. Think roughly the odds of being trampled by a herd of zebra above the Arctic Circle, while being hit by a meteor and lightning. Oh yeah, those threats are going to matter.
A few brave individuals do something about it. They either spend their time, money, and effort to change the laws, or protest. You would think that more people would stand up to protect their legal rights from being trampled, but alas, we live in a world of really really dumb sheep.
Have you done anything, or do you just hope the odds don't catch up to you? I am not talking about hanging one of those little Christmas Tree air fresheners in "zebra repelling" scent in your car, but I mean really doing something, whether it is as simple as writing a physical letter to your Congressperson, or showing up at a local capital for a debate? Probably not, this is why we at Inquirer Labs US are going to do something for you.
As you know, the RIAA generously, with a flourish of backroom deals, set rates for webcasting songs. Curiously, they seem to have set them several times higher than what traditional radio stations pay. These rates are so high that only the largest commercial webcasters can pay them, more or less putting the smaller, worthwhile stations out of business. One would have to conclude that this was not by coincidence. We can all look forward to a vast wasteland of webcasting that resembles the sad state of FM radio in the US. Yipee, time for suicide if you liked music.
Why is this good news? Well, there is a gold hidden in the RIAA's moneygrubbing, power mad jihad, lots of gold. A closer look at the webcast rates shows that it charges
The last piece of the puzzle is that the RIAA has gone after P2P networks with a vengeance, breeding hatred on a level rarely seen in modern times. No one, even most artists who they supposedly represent, likes them. Most people out there would happily pay a few dollars a year to put an end to them. Other than a donation to the EFF, what is one to do? En