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."
The RIAA will try to outlaw singing. After all, they can't sell as many records if people can just reproduce the music with their voice!!! Bahahaha... ::tear::
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.
Ever hear of taping a song off the radio. A lot of people do it.
Git off ma fair use before aye shoot ya.
No, you see, that would be innovation. The RIAA isn't a company that comes out with products, it's an association of old-school record companies trying to protect their old-school business model.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
Unfortunately, the main RIAA customer base is dumb kids who buy manufactured crap like Westlife etc. They will continue to buy that shit and continue to fund these retards.
Hello,
They don't want it to end, that is the plain answer. The RIAA lives of the customers who buy "legal" music (they never remember the Creative Commons license, isn't that curious?). They are not interested in the earnings of the artists, of course; they only stand for their own earnings. Take into account that a musician earns more money playing in concerts, than selling discs.
To sum up: money rules.
Muaaaaaaaaks
--
You'd stumble in my footsteps (Depeche Mode, "Walking in my shoes")
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
Do your part to talk with your acquaintances and encourage them not to support the RIAA.
Whining on Slashdot won't get much accomplished. Convincing people that they won't be able to enjoy music how they like it in the near future will make a difference.
Just last night I carefully explained to a friend who enjoys listening to Cold exactly why she should take a look at which record labels publish those CDs. It's pretty simple--sure, you may be able to buy the CD now, but the next one might be copy protected. If you buy stuff that is put out by those who aren't part of this major media conglomerate, then you won't be encouraging such business tactics.
I don't know how much of my message was actually heard and how much was just glossed over, but by the time I finished talking she seemed to be at least a little more aware that there should be more to CD purchasing than just finding what you like.
For me, it is COMPLETELY about the record label. I use the RIAA Radar like nobody's business, and I try my absolute hardest only to buy CDs that come up clean when checked there. There are several highly-desirable purchases I refuse to make because I would be supporting the RIAA. It's a sacrifice I'm willing to make because I understand the implications of giving in.
Fortunately, my music tastes lean towards electronic ("techno"), which is quite predisposed towards free sharing and downloading. Right now I can give you URLs to four artists' music sites that allow you to download 128kbps or better mp3s of those artists songs without any DRM. There are plenty of indie labels and pro-P2P/sharing musicians out there in other genres, but it appears to me that my favorite type of music has the largest percentage.
Remember Digital Audio Tape? Wanna go buy one?
Look at what the DMCA is doing to reverse engineering.
Look at what's being discussed to close the 'analog hole'.
Our nation is sacrificing it's technological competitiveness in the name of the entertainment industries. We have already sacrificed a LOT, though it's still reversible.
One of my Senators is Patrick Leahy, and maybe it's time for me to become a single-issue voter. His response to my last letter on this was not satisfactory, I need to try again - well before November.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
You don't need a digital radio, programs like StationRipper (http://www.ratajik.com/StationRipper) have been around for quite a while that let you save songs from streaming radio (like Shoutcast) as mp3's, including the correct tags.
The comment about fears of "cherry-picking" songs probably tells more about the industry's real fears than they intended. Their biggest fear, I think, isn't simply about piracy (which can always be fought as a crime) but that listeners will become accustomed to listen to what they want, when they want. The existing structure of the music industry depends on using the radio and favorable product placement to boost certain artists; that's why those artists are willing to sign such unfavorable contracts. If the people in charge of the music industry lose control of popular taste, they're finished no matter what else happens.
Slightly OT, but...
Actually, ClearChannel *wants* Stern off the radio. CC only had him in 6 markets... and competed against him in the others. Actually, they competed against him in those markets also - they have sister stations (with competing morning shows) in all of them.
Obviously in those markets, their morning drive takes a bath going up against him. Where I live, Stern fluctuates between a 38 to a 45 share, and peaked in one book at a 53 share... imagine driving to work, and *every-other car on the road* is listening to him (every-other as in "even-odd"). Half. Freakin HALF. This leaves the other 12 stations in my area competing for scraps - 12 stations competing for 48%. Right off the bat, their numbers are starting at half. Stern cornered a 53% share. 2nd place came in with a 7.3 share (prior to Stern, they averaged 15-17). 3rd came in with a 6.2. 4th... rofl... 3.1. The rest were all 1s and 2s, and most dropped their morning shows and simply play music. Doomed.
Six stations is all CC had him on, and he kind of slaughters their morning drives in all markets where he competes against them. Business decision - if he's in your market, none of your stations will make any money in Morning Drive, the most important day-part in Radio. Even if you have him on one of your stations - your others in that market are still screwed. What do you do?
It kind of explains why CC won't buy out his contract - depending on how it works, one possibility is that upon termination, the exclusivity goes away - any other station in those six markets would be free to pick him up. They'd be right back at square one, where none of their morning day-parts would make money. They'd need to delay the "ending" of that contract for as long as possible. It also explains why their lobby "donations" have gone up a bit as of late.
So, Stern isn't gone - what we're seeing is yet another almost-monopoly trying to maintain itself. If there's big money behind getting Stern thrown off the air, it's from ClearChannel...
help me i've cloned myself and can't remember which one I am
"U.S. regulators at the Federal Communications Commission should ensure that the broadcast format limits such copying so radio stations don't turn the airwaves into a giant file-sharing network, RIAA officials said."
So the RIAA doesn't want radio to become a giant sharing network?
You're the ones broadcasting your signal into our airspace. You don't want to share? Turn off the transmitter.
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.