Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Protests Digital Radio
prostoalex writes "Afraid that digital radio listeners might soon be able to cherry-pick certain songs and share them with others on the Internet, RIAA urged FCC to consider broadcast regulations that limit such copying. The National Association of Broadcasters is not too happy with RIAA's request, as more than three hundred broadcasters either have digital CD-quality radio, or are in the process of setting them up. Meanwhile, as MSNBC notes, products like The Bug from Pure Digital are already capable of recording digital radio."
Does anyone still remember Massinova? They offered near CD quality streams, a great request system, etc etc...
And to thank them for their efforts, the RIAA sued and screwed em, and now that great Trance stream is no more.
Long live Massinova.
this posting might be of interest/relevance to this discussion.
:-)
Posted without a karma bonus so I'm not accused of karma.... well you know. I would have posted anonymously but I've alrealy posted anon 10 jokes today
Last I heard, "HD Radio" was compressed using MPEG-4 AAC. I forget the bitrate, but it's likely around 128 Kbps. This is real good, but not CD-quality. Eric Weaver Chief Engineer, KFJC, 1993-1997
I agreem.
My understanding is that recording from radio is perfectly legal, and I wish it to remain legal and not encumbered by copy prohibitions.
Where people go wrong is that it is just as illegal as it ever was to redistribute the content without permission, the only thing changing is that it is easier. Being easy to do doesn't make an argument for legalization - there were almost always things that are easy to do yet were still illegal.
Did you read my post? I'm talking about both a car stereo, and an integrated burner (Bug just rips the songs to mp3 and dumps them out the USB port).
Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
Sure it's from Russia, but for ~$1.00 a CD for 256 VBR MP3's... Who cares... If I don't like a song, I've thrown away $.07..
And as long as you don't distribute it, you're still not doing anything illegal (yet).
No, Clear Channel removed him from all their stations, but he was only on a handful of them. Stern's primary network is through Infinity owned stations.
The piece was Allegri's Miserere and it was deemed too beautiful to be performed anywhere outside of the Sistine Chapel. There are numerous stories surrounding incident which is quite possibly one of the earliest urban legends. Anyway, the whole story is recounted here. Mozart may have reproduced the piece from memory after a 1769 visit (when he was 12). Mozart died in 1791, so it was "loosely" "around 1800" as the parent suggests.
I'm sorry. I got the impression when Stern said: "As soon as I came out against Bush, that's when my rights to free speech were taken away. It had nothing to do with indecency" on March 19, 2004. That he was against the war. I don't listen to Stern. I used to, but I've moved around a bit and haven't gotten into the habit of listening to morning radio again.
http://www.buzzflash.com/farrell/04/03/far04009.hI have hard time imagining Stern being "pro-war" but "anti-bush" since that seems to be the major election issue but I will concede that is possible. I might have been mistaken, but I wasn't lying. So please don't fling that word around so freely.
Stern is right though, he didn't get canned from the six Clear Channel stations because a caller used the word "nigger" before Stern hung up on him. It is almost certainly because he is "anti-bush", and I'm happy he is fighting back in a productive way. But, I'll reiterate nothing about what went down was illegal, or something I feel the government should get involved with. I disagree with Stern that his right to free speech was taken away. However, I do think something is definetly wrong with our current media conglomerate system we have in America. But, that isn't currently under discussion.
Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true! -Homer Simpson
ummm, no, unless you are a major promotion company Bill Graham Presents, Clear Channel, etc. As a promoter you are luck to make a living wage.
As an example:
My girlfriend used to promote bands here in SF, one show she did sold approximately 1200 tickets, at $25 a ticket, she had $30,000 coming in. sounds good.
oops
band cost: 12,000
rider costs: 2,500 venue rental: 4,000
promotion: 2,000
equipment rental for night of show: 5,000
staff costs: 1,500
for a rough total of: 27,000
she worked her ass of for one month, and worked somewhat hard for another month. So let's call it $3,000 for working her ass off for one and a half months. $12.50 an hour. whoopee.
The band, showed up, had a hotel room waiting, had all but their specialty lighting waiting, had half their instruments waiting. did a 45 minute sound check, played for an hour and 15 minutes, and made 12,000, minus 10% for management, and let's say another 20% for incidentals, they made 8,400 for one nights work. 3 people in the band, 2800 each, they played a city a night for something like 3 months, with a conservative 2 days off a week, each band member made about $150,000 in three months.
this is a relatively niche oriented band, with a consistent following, but they are making decent money at it.
promoters don't really start to make money until they own venues, and can negotiate multiple shows, etc.
I could go on and on, but as in anything music business related, the bigger you are the more you make. not much to do with talent, most the folks I know that are in the live music business are in it because they really like a certain style of music, or possibly they just love music, but you sure aren't in it for the money.
If you are one in a million, then there are six thousand people who are just like you.
The cat's already out of the bag... Heard of Replay Music?
This clever program records internet radio streams or songs from services like Rhapsody & Napster, splits tracks into individual MP3s, and even automatically tags the MP3 files with the title and artist info. It records with great quality, too.
Check it out here:
www.replay-music.com
At best, we're taking about 96kbps audio. However, many stations (e.g., NPR) are pursuing dual-program configurations in which the 'main' audio would be transmitted at only 64kbps.
The RIAA is afraid of us recording 96 (or likely, 64) kbps (highly compressed) audio. With a good signal at a stationary location, some would argue that current FM sounds as good (if not better) than the compressed version. (At the end of the day, it's a subjective issue.) It would seem the RIAA is attempting to make radio more restrictive than it currently is.
Your monitor is staring at you.